The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

The Democrats’ White-Male Problem

By on 11.13.12 @ 6:09AM

Among others, too numerous to list in a headline.

We’re being told by Democrats that Republicans have a white-male problem. But what about Democrats’ white-male problem?

Think about it: What about the Democratic Party’s extraordinary loss of white males? It was white males who built the Democratic Party, and built America, and stormed the beaches of Normandy, and defeated Hitler, and much more. I’m a white male. Many of us are actually decent people. My Christian white-male ancestors fought for the north in the Civil War and freed black Americans from slavery. A lot of them died for that. I’m proud of what they did.

Why make fun of us? Why are so many liberals seemingly so contemptuous of white males? Why do they hate us?

Moreover, why wouldn’t Democrats want to try to win back some white males? And why are white males so solidly Republican, a trend that started 30 years ago?

The Democrats have ceded this huge voting bloc to Republicans. Every four years, Democrats start with that major disadvantage. It’s like Republicans starting with Electoral College losses of California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

For that matter, why aren’t Democrats appealing to married women? Married women voted for Mitt Romney handily. Obama got single women in a landslide, but, last I checked, there are tens of millions of married women in America—and they didn’t vote Democrat.

Furthermore, why are Democrats losing people over the age of 45? Those aged 45-64 (men and women both) voted Romney over Obama 51-47, and those 65 or older went Romney 56-44. I understand there will be a lot more of these voters going forward. These are the Social Security and Medicare recipients that Democrats have been banking on for 50 years.

Another good question that ought to concern Democrats: Why did nearly 60 percent of churchgoing Catholics vote for Mitt Romney? Year-by-year, faithful Catholics have faithfully moved away from the Democratic Party. They once formed the backbone of the party. They were a slam-dunk for Democrats. Not anymore. They’re gone. Why aren’t Democrats trying to appeal to them?

Even more striking, why did nearly 80 percent of evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, over Barack Obama, a Christian?

In fact, why are religious people in general fleeing the Democratic Party like the plague? If you describe yourself as churchgoing, you tend to vote Republican. This has been true for at least 20 years now. To the contrary, those who describe themselves as “not very” or “not at all” religious vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee. Sure, the country is getting more secular, but the vast majority of Americans still believe in God.

Once upon a time, the Democrats were a very religious party. Populists like William Jennings Bryan were the heart and soul of the party. Not anymore. Gay marriage and abortion — two new planks liberals have eagerly embraced — will continue to drive away devoutly religious people.

And what about pro-lifers? Do Democrats want only radical abortion advocates in their tent? If you’re pro-life, you vote Republican — period. As the Democrats expand their abortion frontier to include forced taxpayer funding of everything from Planned Parenthood to contraception (their new “entitlement”) they will further repel any and all pro-lifers.

While we’re at it, have the Democrats looked at a county map lately? Basically, every state is colored red, with the exception of the scattered dots that comprise big cities. Take away Philadelphia, and Mitt Romney easily wins my state of Pennsylvania. What are Democrats doing to reach out to the vast landscape that consistently votes Republican?

Speaking of which, what about the South? It’s a guarantee for Republicans every four years. It didn’t used to be that way. Just a few decades ago, the entire swath of the South was more Democratic than Massachusetts. What are the Democrats doing to attract Southerners?

Now, that said, I’m not ignorant to certain demographics that concern me as a conservative Republican. For one, it’s both disconcerting and absurd that 71 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, up from 67 percent in 2008. Hispanics are socially conservative. They are devoutly Catholic, pro-life, pro-family, and likely not big advocates of gay marriage. Republicans must pay them much greater attention. I felt from the outset that Marco Rubio was a better political pick than Paul Ryan for this reason. Republicans need not alter their message or jettison conservatism to reach Latinos, quite the contrary. They simply need to be more strategic.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) |

Henry22| 11.13.12 @ 6:33AM

Think of it from the Democrats' point of view: as long as they're winning elections, why should they court white male voters??

Aristocat| 11.13.12 @ 8:56AM

Too many white males...What if we said, "The Democrats have too many blacks and Mexicans."
That would be racist, but it's OK to demonize and discriminate against white males

rjh| 11.13.12 @ 10:56AM

White males have been under attack for some time. Now, with obama in the White House, the Democrats and the media feel empowered to display their blatant racism against them.

Vic| 11.13.12 @ 12:55PM

We are too strong to be discriminated against. Stop whining Aristocat. To Henry22's point I say they will come back to the while male voter as that is the most reliable voting block. Whether the white male (excluding White Jews) will ever come back to the Democrats is another question. Right now 80% are voting Republican and believe it or not the number will get even larger. Ultimately the only White males voting for Democrats would be White senators/reps and their immediate families!!

Aristocat| 11.14.12 @ 5:45AM

Not whining, just telling it like it is...It's racist to say "The Democrats have too many blacks and Mexicans," but it's not racist to say, "The Republicans have too many whites." ???

John Navratil| 11.13.12 @ 10:13AM

Henry22,

Your question is apropos, but it assumes a continuation of identity politics which is tearing this nation apart. We no longer are asking whether we want to focus more or less on national or international affairs, whether we want more or less attention to the poverty or energy, or whether states should be more or less powerful with respect to the Federation. We have completely devolved into the takers and makers. All we are fighting for is a plurality - can we talk that guy in the middle into getting off the couch or not.

The next question is how long will the Dems win elections based on promises to identitities? Put another way, how long will the electorate identify as groups or individuals?

Joellen| 11.13.12 @ 6:55AM

Wow two articles in TAS that have gotten it - I LOVE IT. First, Jeffrey Lord's and now this article, which IS what we've been saying since Tuesday; change the narrative back. Do what the Saul Alinksynites on the left have been doing - and by jove - you're doing it - taking the narrative back.

Democrats/Liberals are the MOST INTOLERANT people on the earth - let's make sure that the people are aware of that over, and over and over again. They dont compromise, they are angry, even when they win, and their defination really should be "destructive".

They hate America and what she stands for, and their sole purpose is to bring her down.

Just keep repeating this over and over - that's what they do. Everytime they bring up some lie about the Tea Party or Conservatives just hit them right back with "why do you hate the babies in the womb, and why doesnt your head hang in shame and sorrow when you acknowledge that the Democrat/Destructive party applauds and advocates the murder of 55 plus of them". Insert whatever your "fight" is about. Just do it Over and Over as they do.

Keep changing the narrative folks - to the TRUTH and maybe, if it's GOD's will, we can change the path of this country.

Frank Drackman| 11.13.12 @ 7:38AM

Your ancestors "freed Black Americans from Slavery"?
Oh, so they fought against the Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and even D.C.? All of which continued to have legal Slavery even after Lincoln's "Emancipation"(which only applied to those areas of the Confederacy NOT under Union control)
and by that logic, I guess my Ancestors, who fought for those areas of the Confederacy NOT under Union Control did more to end Slavery, than old Abe himself..
And it's more of a "Southern White Male" problem, as we're the only group who voted against EICOTUS(Evolver in Chief of the US) to any extent.
Maybe he'll continue to evolve, may take a few billion years, which will be the next time the Repubiclans win if they don't get their Shee-Ot together..

Frank "fucke Neal Young" Drackman

C. Vernon Crisler | 11.13.12 @ 12:21PM

Lincoln did not free slaves in Union states for two reason (1) no need to alienate his own allies at a crucial point in the war, and more importantly (2) he believed only a Constitutional amendment could permanently end slavery.

It was his respect for the Constitution -- not shared by either his Northern abolitionist or his Southern opponents -- that compelled him to use military necessity as a way of freeing slaves in insurrectionary states.

kayleigh28| 11.13.12 @ 8:18AM

As a conservative, and a Christian, I've often thought that the Republican Party should actively encourage its members to embrace Hispanic immigrants wholeheartedly. We shouldn't allow the Democrats to use illegal immigration to drive a wedge between us, because we desperately need help. There are two looming threats that we are facing WITHIN our nation--radical secularism and radical Islamism, and we will need all the help we can get.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 10:14AM

This will be impossible until Republicans stop the racist based entitlements system that promises Hispanics special preferences. It's amusing that the modern narrative defines racist bigots as selfish and intolerant and even monstrous yet most people fail to see that leftist racism takes advantage of that very quality to get votes.

C. Vernon Crisler | 11.13.12 @ 12:23PM

Conservatives, Christian or otherwise, should not be embracing Hispanic immigrants. It's just the other way around: Hispanic immigrants should be embracing the Republican Party. And they would if the Republic Party would return to its values and not play the moderate game every election. What Hispanics needs is leadership, and they don't get it from Republicans.

Frank Drackman| 11.13.12 @ 8:21AM

Lets see, how can I word this..
What 2 States were the last where you could legally own Slaves?
Or, what 2 States was Slavery last legal in?
OK, I'll let one of you loser English Majors to correct my Grammer, the answer may surprise you...

Frank "Damn the Mint Juleps, I'll take a Long Island Iced Tea" Drackman, CSA

Alej| 11.13.12 @ 8:31AM

"...71 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, up from 67 percent in 2008.

Hispanics are socially conservative. "

Well, which the hell is it ?

kayleigh28| 11.13.12 @ 9:09AM

The author is right. They are VERY socially conservative--very religious, pro-life and pro-family! They voted for Obama because the Democrats do a great job of driving a wedge between Hispanics and Republicans, using the illegal immigration issue to do it. The Democrats tell Hispanics, "Republicans are racist and they want to send Grandma home to Mexico." Republicans do a terrible job defending our positions. In addition (see my post above) I have come to believe that Conservatives desperately NEED Hispanics, in fact, their growing numbers might be the only thing that will save this country from radical secularism and radical Islamism--two very big threats that we haven't even begun to address.

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 10:04AM

Hey, look at it in this context:

*Bush received on average 40 percent of the hispanic vote during his presidency, was considered at the time a "conservative" (I know, don't laugh), and PRO-AMNESTY

*John McCain, a moderate, received approximately 37 percent of the Hispanic vote and SOLID PRO-AMNESTY

*Mitt Romney, a moderate-conservative, received approximately 30 percent of the vote and was ANTI-AMNESTY

The takeaway for republicans is generally good news regarding the Hispanic vote. A republican candidate can run on a strong anti-illegal immigration platform and STILL count on 30 percent of the Hispanic vote. The same candidate can run on a more pro-amnesty platform and perhaps receive 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Put another way, the Hispanic vote is fertile ground for republicans because there indeed seems to be a real thread of conservatism running through the Hispanic community.

The African American, on the other hand, community is a lost cause. A barren desert for republicans and, SADLY, not worth pursuing.

As a matter of fact, if I were a republican candidate reaching out to the Hispanic community I would use the African American experience as an object lesson for what happens when an ethnic group makes a deal with the devil (i.e. the socialist democratic party).

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 10:14AM

And by the way folks. When referring to the democratic party, I suggest we refer to them as the Democratic Socialist Party because that's exactly what they have become.

I'm sure Patty Murray, Barney Frank, the CBC, and Barack Hussein Obama would not disagree.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 10:17AM

Another way of looking at it is that 60% of the Hispanic vote is locked up for the Democrats as long as they enjoy promises of racial privileges.

kayleigh28| 11.13.12 @ 2:13PM

I am not suggesting that we should change our views on amnesty, since that would only encourage more illegal immigration. I just think that there are changes that could be made in our legal immigration policies, and changes that could be made in our welfare programs that, as you correctly point out, encourage them to be dependent on the government and loyal to the Democrat Party. Most importantly, though, I think that we as conservatives should reconsider the way we view Latinos, and try to look at them as ALLIES rather than looking at them with suspicion. I have spent a lot of time in El Paso, TX, and, trust me, conservatives have far more in common with Hispanics (and they with us!) than most people realize. Note: I am not naive, I know there is a bad element within the Hispanic community (drug runners, gun runners, "coyotes", etc.), but I am talking about hard-working, honest Hispanics, which make up the vast majority.
I believe that we need each other.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 4:50PM

The Hispanics will not change their view, at least the portion voting with Obama, as long as they enjoy racist preferences via La Raza (the Race.) Pandering to them will do no good.

Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 9:30PM

Hey, I adopted my two kids from Guatemala. They are Mayan AND Hispanic.

I do my best to save money to put them through college regardless, but I always believe in more than one string for my bow. My wife says, "stand for your anti-Affirmative Action Principles," but my view is that I paid for a lot of that money in my PROGRESSIVELY indexed taxes.

I always assume the worst is going to happen. Never painfully surprised that way.

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 7:55PM

Sounds like we mostly agree with one another.

Santiago| 11.13.12 @ 10:04AM

Kayleigh is right. Democrats tell Latinos (and I refer to legal, voting citizens here) that Republicans see them as invaders and don't like them and want to send that cousin they have that's here illegally back to wherever they're from, and that they are the party of inclusion and acceptance. Republicans tell Latinos nothing, and argue among themselves as to what to do about "them" and the illegal issue (most native-born Americans don't realize how difficult/expensive it can be to legally immigrate in the first place). I don't remember where I read it, but I read that in mid October the Obama campaign was spending around 3 times what the Romney campaign was in Spanish advertising in Florida. So naturally most Latinos vote for the party that "cares" about them and says they want them here. I oversimplify the issue, but only a little.

Bob K| 11.13.12 @ 9:11AM

It is about time this matter was brought up. The Republican leadership won't touch this subject with a 10 foot pole for fear of charges of "racism" from the liberals.

The fact is that Republican's can't win national elections if white people won't come out to vote for them. Nor can they win statewide elections in states like Pennsylvania without them. They are the natural constituency of the Republican party. The party leadership should "reach out" to them before they reach out to minorities or the Republican party will become even more a minority political party than it already is.

The Republican leadership should take stronger action in attacking government unions. It worked in Wisconsin. Union members in the private sector have little regard of members of public unions like school teachers whom they regard as little more than blackmailing interlopers into the union movement. The Republican party should take steps encourage this split in the Union ranks.

One of the reasons that Latino's vote Democrat is because they can take advantage of "Affirmative Action." Here they become rivals with Black American's for for federal, state and academic jobs and promotions. No love is lost between these two groups because of this and their competition for these jobs weakens the Democratic coalition. This weakness should also be exploited by the Republican party.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 10:31AM

"The Republican leadership won't touch this subject with a 10 foot pole for fear of charges of "racism" from the liberals."

BobK, I've been preaching this for years here and the leadership hasn't gotten the message much less most here. Eventually, when it becomes obvious that "binders full of women" won't get out the vote for them, they'll have touch the issue WITHOUT the 10 foot pole but rather embrace it. The left defines as "racist" the very existence of the Republican party and white males. Simply breathing and hiding in attics is to them, suspicious.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 10:29AM

This article is a GOOD start to the whole "white male" problem overall (note the irony of the term "white male" and historical use of the term "problem" in describing ethnicity.) Both parties have problems AND OPPORTUNITIES. For the Republicans, it's an opportunity to increase voter turnout AND margins. The left enjoys a 95% to _100%_ black voter margins. In this election, white males voted for Romney by a 66% voter margin. If he got the other 33%, then he'd get 13% of the overall total vote hence the election would have gone Romney 61% to Obama 38%!!! (Of course, this is optimal not taking into account hard core socialists, fascists, and government union fatcats.)

In addition, what many on the left who gleefully chuckle over the end of their "white male problem" on leftist blogs fail to realize is that the average leftist LOVES living with white guys. Most of them live in white male neighborhoods including Obama himself and his minister. We're not so bad, really. And Europe, the utopia of the left, has a lot of white males in it too. The left is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sadly, the blacks and hispanics are not yet battling each other over affirmative action perks. They still think there's plenty left to go around and the left knows it. It's like the Soviet-Anglo alliance lasting in WWII.

Bob K| 11.13.12 @ 6:31PM

I have a friend who works in a very large federal agency in Philadelphia dominated by blacks. He noted that there have been many new hirings and even promotions for hispanics and the blacks are starting to worry about it.

Meanwhile here is an article from Southern California about minority voting in this election. Note that Asians also gave Obama over 70% of their votes.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/mult.....-maybe-so/

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 8:26PM

The main problem is that there is a diversity-of-thought problem in the minority communities.

THERE IS NONE!!

Here, Mr. Holder, is your "honest discussion about race"!

Denver Todd| 11.13.12 @ 10:38AM

Even more striking, why did nearly 80 percent of evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, over Barack Obama, a Christian?

Answer: Most true believers see Obama as a CINO (Christian in name only).

RCV| 11.13.12 @ 11:51AM

No, because most voters don't vote based on a candidate's religion.

Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 9:32PM

RCV: abortion is the reason.

Tim.W| 11.14.12 @ 12:09AM

Denver Todd is correct. Obama is a Christian in name only.

Evangelicals abhor the things that Obama loves, they had much more in common with Mitt.

So you are both right.

Who Knows?| 11.13.12 @ 11:04AM

“We all know a fool when we see one, but never when we are one.”

Maybe I’M a fool for passing on this bromide!

Here’s an analysis and a prediction---

The Hispanic subclass of American voters, especially the recent fact that they went for Obama by 71%, is about to be studied, HARD and DEEP, and if enough people have their eyes wide open, the findings won’t be pretty, but they’ll be absolutely edifying, and applicable to ALL classes.

First, the conventional wisdom about them, that they are “natural conservatives”, is total BS. Anyone who spouts this nonsense should IMMEDIATELY be taken behind the woodshed, stripped naked, and spanked!

Second, the elephant-in-the-room reason is completely obvious---they LOVE government, like a parent, and not being stupid, they vote for Democrats, who will give them stuff.

See, that was simple!

And, yet---what do you see happening at the tip of the “conservative” pundocracy, epitomized by Krauthammer and Hannity?

Simple minded “growing in office”!

The Peter Principle is thriving.

People continue to rise to their highest level of incompetence, and, oh---the damage done!

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 11:42AM

Over the years Hispanics have voted republican in percentages ranging from 45% to 30%, depending on who the republican candidate is and their standing on immigration, and who the democratic candidate is, and whether the candidate is a minority or not.

The undeniable fact is that a democratic can have a candidate who is historic, black, and who runs on a left wing/socialist platform and STILL LOSE about A THIRD of the Hispanic vote.

That is great news because it tells me the Socialist Democratic Party's ceiling for Hispanic votes is about 2/3.

If republicans play their cards right and GROW this reliable 1/3 of voters among the Hispanic electorate, it will go a long way to offset other rising democratic voting blocs.

As Victor Davis Hanson points out in his piece today, the path for Hispanics should be the path Italians took during the early twentieth century. An ethnic group fully Americanized but also true to their heritage. That means getting beyond voting strictly on skin color or tribal identity and voting based on personal ideology.

Reality should tell us we must at least give this a shot.

JD| 11.13.12 @ 11:23AM

Democrats also do very poorly among intelligent, informed people, but they make up for it by dominating the self-deluded bloc.

RCV| 11.13.12 @ 11:53AM

Democrats do better among highly educated people, JD.

junkyard infidel| 11.13.12 @ 12:19PM

you mean pseudo-intellectuals like yourself and the rest of the liberal/progressive/democrat party of fisting sycophants ?

John Navratil| 11.13.12 @ 12:37PM

RCV,

Do you suggest a causal link? Perhaps the lady with the "Obamaphone" could explain it to us.

Is it:

Not all Democrats are highly educated people, but all highly educated people are Democrats.

or:

Not all highly educated people are Democrats, but all Democrats are highly educated people.

or am I dreaming?

RCV| 11.13.12 @ 7:09PM

None of the above. But the data is pretty unrefutable that more highly educated people tend to vote Democratic. Just a fact.

There are obviously plenty of highly educated Republicans as well.

Bob Grant| 11.13.12 @ 8:06PM

Democrats do better among highly educated people?

Obamaphonepeople would take issue with that.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 1:37PM

I'm always amused at how often highly "educated" people know so little about history or the world around them. (Not directed at RCV, just a general observation.)

Consider: In the 13th century, the educated elite were largely religious and education served a purpose to preserve religious dogma. Moderately educated people were probably the most reasonable since they were, like today, the engineers of their time: craftsmen, merchants and clerks.

Amusingly, it's much the same today: The religious dogma of the left is more popular with the illiterate (that they choose to not live amongst) and the privileged, upper classes that can afford their delusions via higher real estate values and costs in limosine liberal neighborhoods. Normal, middle class schmoes live in rural exoburbs or even live among "diverse" people and are more in touch with reality.

JD| 11.13.12 @ 2:32PM

I chose the words "intelligent" and "informed" for a reason, RCV. What you people call "education" leads to neither intelligence nor information, and is better described, as I said, as self-delusion.

Nancy in NC| 11.13.12 @ 3:32PM

Yep, especially if they attend Harvard, Princeton, Yale or one of the other leftist schools. They may be educated, but they have no common sense and absolutely no handle on reality.

PolishKnight| 11.13.12 @ 4:53PM

Nancy, it's called cognitive dissonance. Leftists do have a handle on it in that they know to avoid "ethnic" neighborhoods after dark and even engage in outright paradoxes (bash middle and working whites as losers for not affording to live in upper class leftist white neighborhoods while simultaneously deriding them as "racist" about their "privileges".)

The solution to these conflicts is very simple for them: Bash and blame those they betray and belittle. As "caring" people the world revolves around, that's how it is for them.

Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 9:36PM

Highly educated people are not necessarily non-self deluded, RCV.

This is not meant as a Nazi slam on you, for you are not that and I am not going there, but Herr Dr. Goebbels was highly educated. Many, many people spend a lot of time and energy getting PhDs in "American Studies," etc.

Highly degreed does not necessarily mean wise. Or good. Or useful. Or intelligent. Especially when the well of knowledge is poisoned.

I wouldn't give two craps for the intellectual rigor of the majority of the non-science education in the US anymore outside of the two St. John Colleges, Grove City, and Hillsdale.

Tim.W| 11.14.12 @ 12:22AM

If dim's didn't have the welfare bloc they would never, and I mean never, win another election. The welfare bloc is hardly what I would call educated or informed. More like naive, easily manipulated and easily bought.

I have no idea if the dim's in general have more college graduates etc. if so and that's your measure of native intelligence so be it.

Most of the dim's I know with college educations know less about civics than a non-native citizen and less about economics than a kid selling lemonade.

In regards to informed I think it's been proven over and over again that the average dim voter doesn't have a clue about whats going on, how economies work, how the nation works etc. though they certainly think they do.

Stick| 11.13.12 @ 12:54PM

Paul, get real, Mexicans are not going to vote Republican. Cubans yes, Mexicans no. Check out their respective histories and how they come to us. I am so tired of hearing this chestnut. Hang around Southern California and learn something.

Nancy in NC| 11.13.12 @ 3:30PM

Reagan did the amnesty back in the 80s. What good did it do?

People want things for nothing & won't give one thin dime for freedom. They don't give a fig about freedom anymore...they prefer security, the handouts, the obama phone, for heaven's sake.

Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 9:37PM

Yeah, I notice how that amnesty won a lot of Republican votes.

Tim.W| 11.13.12 @ 11:55PM

"...over Barack Obama, a Christian?"

HA, that's a good one, a Christian. No I don't think he is a Muslim, I think he is a secular opportunist.

Tim.W| 11.13.12 @ 11:59PM

"I felt from the outset that Marco Rubio was a better political pick than Paul Ryan"

With a few other tweaks we might be talking about President Romney instead of four more years of misery.

Still, anyone that votes for a candidate based on lawlessness and theft (handouts) is not really a conservative and can't be counted on.

Turning 11 million illegals into voting Americans is probably giving wood to Nancy Pelosi every time she thinks about it.

The Asians are bit more puzzling to me, I thought they were smarter than this but apparently being raised in a dictatorship is something they dearly miss.

Tim.W| 11.14.12 @ 12:26AM

Lets be honest we can win the Latino vote in two possible ways.

Give them more stuff than the dims (hardly a good choice) or run a Latino candidate and let their natural tendency towards cultural tribalism work for us.

If the Republicans fall for the immigration ruse they will have sold us down the river.

The Asians I can't figure out, the must just really love being stepped on by tyrants for something.

Aristocat| 11.14.12 @ 5:46AM

Great comment about the Asians...
"The Asians I can't figure out, the must just really love being stepped on by tyrants for something."
Alot of them are spies for Red China.

HoraceRumphole| 11.16.12 @ 5:07AM

Obama is not a Christian, but a secular opportunist who attended church not because of belief, but because it could get him votes.

More Articles by Paul Kengor

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?

May 14, 2013 | Ralph R. Reiland

The Politicization Crusade

May 8, 2013 | Ron Ross

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/13/the-democrats-white-male-probl

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord|19 comments

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron|4 comments

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin|4 comments

It’s.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky|6 comments

Flatten the IRS

Ray V. Hartwell, III|13 comments

A Nation on the Edge

Joseph A. Harriss|3 comments

Downton’s Class System — and Ours

Tom Bethell|3 comments

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The IRS Scandal: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature

Mark Meckler | 6:34AM

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.