-
The Loss of Trust
June 18, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Sex and the Military
June 12, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Economics vs. ‘Need’
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Historic Rescuers
June 5, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Abstract Immigrants
June 4, 2013 | 31 comments
The Grassroots Spectator
Is Demography Destiny?
That destiny could be Democratic administrations as far out as the eye can see.
Some media pundits see in the growing proportion of non-white groups in the population a growing opposition to the Republican Party that will sooner or later make it virtually impossible for Republicans to win presidential elections or even to control either house of Congress. But is demography destiny?
Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats.
Whether in a racial context or in other contexts, the supposed need for Republicans to become more like Democrats has long been a recurring theme of the moderate Republican establishment, going back more than half a century.
Yet the most successful Republican presidential candidate during that long period was a man who went completely counter to that conventional wisdom — namely, Ronald Reagan, who won back to back landslide election victories.
Meanwhile, moderate Republican presidential candidate after moderate Republican presidential candidate has gone down to defeat, even against Democratic presidential candidates who were unpopular (Harry Truman), previously unknown (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) or who had a terrible economic track record (Barack Obama).
None of this seems to have caused any second thoughts in the Republican establishment. So long as that remains the case, demography may indeed be destiny — and that destiny could be Democratic administrations as far out as the eye can see.
If non-white voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked for them, then Republicans are doomed, even if they choose to go that route. Why should anyone who wants racially earmarked goodies vote for Republicans, when the Democrats already have a track record of delivering such goodies?
An alternative way to make inroads into the overwhelming majority of minority votes for Democrats would be for the Republicans to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans.
But the Republicans’ greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles — and the track record of those principles — to either white or non-white voters.
Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration. This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation.
Conversely, few policies have had such a devastating effect on the job opportunities of minority youths as minimum wage laws, which are usually pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. But these facts do not “speak for themselves.” Somebody has to cite the facts and take the trouble to show why unemployment among minority youths skyrocketed when minimum wage increases priced them out of jobs.
The loss of income from an entry-level job is only part of the loss sustained by minority young people. Work experience at even an entry-level job is a valuable asset, as a stepping stone to progressively higher level jobs. Moreover, nobody gains from having a huge number of idle youths hanging out on the streets, least of all minority communities.
Labor unions push minimum wage laws to insulate their members from the competition of younger workers, and Democratic politicians are heavily dependent on union support. For the same reason, Democrats have to go along with teachers’ unions that treat schools as places to guarantee their members jobs, rather than to provide the quality education so much needed to rise out of poverty.
What Democrats cannot say under these conditions is what Republicans are free to say — even if Republicans have seldom taken advantage of that freedom to make inroads into minority voting blocs. Inroads are all they need. If the black vote for Democrats falls to 70 percent, the Democrats are in deep trouble.
But if Republicans continue inarticulate, then it is they who are in big trouble. More important, so is the country..
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Grassroots Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/14/is-demography-destiny
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Sweet Home, Alabama
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 11.14.12 @ 6:57AM
Stand back and let it crash. That's the only answer at this point. Let the dictator have his head; pull your head in and keep it down, and look after your family in the old fashioned way, and keep a safe place in mind to bolt to when the flames start to light up the skies. Anybody who has ever tried to take candy from a baby knows how that actually works out -- and after the candy store has been looted and burned to the ground, boy are those babies going to turn on the Democrats. Greece will look like Sunday School compared to what California, New York, and other sinkholes of socialism will produce when their lollipops are snatched away. It will be really tough medicine, but as the Indians used to say, "No bite, no cure." Stay tuned.
Jack in Wi| 11.14.12 @ 7:31AM
The Republicans committed suicide. R.I. P. Goldwater was the first Presidential candidate to call for legalized abortion. Reagan in 1967 signed the first liberal abortion law in the USA. He was followed by Rockefeller in New York shortly after with a much more liberal law. The first 2 states to have a non white majority in this country are Californa and New York. They have also gone from competive electoral to heavily Democratic. Nixon put 3 pro abortion judges on the Surpreme Court. All together 5 of the judges who passed Roe Vs. Wade were Republican appointees. Since then Republican judges have kept it on the books. Goldwater and the Bushes were great supporters of Planned Parenthood. It is funny that the only thing keeping Republicans competitive is the 80% of the Party's voters who are pro-life. I was at a large pro life- gathering last night and everyone waa down about the election. I was down about it as well for maybe a few hours last week. Then I thought another pro- abortion liberal Republican was defeated and said good riddance.
Jack in Wi| 11.14.12 @ 7:53AM
Dr. Sowell is correct about one thing the Republicans or a replacement party can come back if they stand for something. After all what do the Democrats stand for but abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia of the old and disabled, quotas and division by race, sky high taxes, bloated government unions, a war on religion, massive waste and fraud and endless war.
The New Oposition should stand for the exact opposite. It should stand for life, liberty, Peace, fical reponsibility, low taxes, opportunity for all and an end to quotas. After all we have elected a Black man President in 2 straight elections. An African American have been elected or appointed to ever major position in the country. Professional sports , and entertainment are dominated by minorities. Women make up 60% of college graduates. How can we justify affirmative action anymore? The Democrats will destroy the economy sooner rather then later. Abortion, homosexuality, sky high taxes and massive waste are not in reality sane or moral positions. The Republicans once used to get 90% and better of African American votes. We have 2 Asian American governors in the South who are Republican. We have 2 hispanic governors as well. We have as many African Americns in the Senate as the Democrats none. We have to remain or become the opposite of the Democrats and have articulate people who can defend their beliefs. We need an end to the current gang who run the party. We need a real opposition, not a go along and get along gang
Seek| 11.14.12 @ 11:52AM
You utterly miss the point of the article -- and the larger ethno-racial reality.
The hard pro-life position has never been popular in this country. Indeed, it is deeply unpopular among the mainstream of both parties. GOP aversion to radical pro-lifers certainly didn't hurt the party with voters in the 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 elections. It won't hurt them in the future either.
What HAS hurt, and ultimately will destroy, the Republicans is its leadership's support of mass immigration and cowardly refusal to reach out to the white vote. To embrace "diversity" (i.e., nonwhite voters who will never reciprocate) is to embrace the Democratic platform all but in name.
It's race that defines the American future. And as vdare.com's Peter Brimelow likes to say about our immigration policy, "We are electing a new people."
Jack in Wi| 11.14.12 @ 3:07PM
The only thing holding the Republican party up for the last 3 decades is the pro-life 80% of the party. To see what a pro abortion, pro homosexual party looks like see the moribund parties in California, Mass. and New York. The Republicans have committed suicide with their love of abortion. I didn't miss the point, you miss the point of how we got where were are.
Seek| 11.14.12 @ 4:13PM
Nobody "loves" abortion and more than they "love" war. They are merely willing to tolerate it under certain conditions.
Alan Brooks | 11.14.12 @ 5:31PM
Patton loved war, and many others-- to this day.
Von Mises Jr| 11.14.12 @ 7:30AM
While Dr. Sowell is completely correct, I think you need to look at it from the opposite side. If minorities can get $20K for unemployment or welfare, plus $4,400 food stamps for two up to $12,600 for a family of seven, why would someone go to work for $50K less $3,825 for SS and Medicare taxes? Is it not worth $250-400 less net per week to drink and fornicate all day?
The problem needs to be solved by the tax payers refusing to pay for the benefits. Texas is talking about doing that right now. It is call succession: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....d=17701519
Nancy in NC| 11.14.12 @ 8:10AM
They are not all minorities. Whites make up a large percentage of welfare rolls.
I recently had a young family stop by my business. They had just moved here from Ohio. Their biggest complaint about NC? They had to go to too many places to apply for all their benefits.
Von Mises Jr| 11.14.12 @ 9:18AM
You are correct, Nancy. I know some white trash families that are not even urban dwellers. My point in a similar post today was that the Democrat Socialist focused on stealing elections in Philly and Cleveland that have high demographics of minorities and entitlements.
As a conservative and libertarian, I do not look at people's color or ethnicity as a determinant of their character. But this article is discussing that demographic component as a trend or generalization for the sake of argument. It is undeniable that some 93% of blacks and about 70% of Hispanics voted for Obama and the Democrat Socialist. It is not debatable.
Seek| 11.14.12 @ 4:12PM
To say that "not all" welfare supplicants are minorities is like saying that "not all" blacks are criminals. It's irrelevant. We all know proportionately, where patterns can be established, blacks commit far more crime than whites. It's the same thing with welfarism.
We need to reach out to whites.
Butch| 11.14.12 @ 4:48PM
A man named Jared Taylor wrote a book published back in the 90s. It is entitled "Paved with Good Intentions." It is a statistics-packed book which is quite damning of blacks as assimmilatable Americans. All the gigantic disproportions are there: education, welfare use, crime, illegitimacy--all of it. Did you know that American non-blacks back then had a lower crime rate than all European nations?
Notice how they will never give you the ethnic crosstab on "obesity?" It is always geographic--a "southern" problem. We have been so browbeaten by accusations of "racism" for pointing out the facts and the truth that we have lost control of the USA itself.
And now we are overrun with spanish-speaking, Telemundo and Univision-watching, Hola-reading (if they are not illiterate IN SPANISH, which many are) Mexicans waving Mexican flags in our faces and demanding that we assimilate to them. Heather Mac Donald over at NRO points out that they are here to suck on the welfare tit, not for work or opportunity. I think you are right: unless whites assert themselves as whites, we are doomed. Further, I don't think we'll do it until its too late. The only whites who stick together as whites are convicts in prison, because they have to. We will have to as well, soon enough, but it will be in a Mad Max world unless we wake up to what must be done.
JimH| 11.14.12 @ 8:29AM
In the past nativists complained about how America was being overrun by whatever ethnicity was then predominant, Irish, Italian, German, Jew; and now Hispanics. The major difference between then and now was that then, these immigrants while still maintaining a native heritage were eager for themselves and their children to become American. There were institutions in place to encourage this. Americanizing the children of immigrants was one of the main reasons for the growth of tax supported public schools. Many immigrants now are no longer looking to become an American in any real sense, their children are taught in their own tongue in public schools. Any attempt at Americanizing the newcomers is deemed bigoted and a violation of diversity. So I think the issue is less changing demography and more changing assimilation.
Drunken Sailor| 11.14.12 @ 10:46AM
Come on JimH, your were so close to a bullseye. Call it like it is. Spanish speaking immigrants are the largest portion of those that do not want to assimilate. They want us to accomadate them. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Wal-mart and tell me what language is on almost all the products that isn't English.
JimH| 11.14.12 @ 11:10AM
You have a point, but I don’t think that there is anything intrinsically different about Hispanic immigrants compared to those who came before. The main problem is that there are fewer incentives to assimilate and fewer costs for not doing so. Coming from New York I can tell you that this attitude was strong among some newcomers from Eastern Europe and Russia as well. For whatever reason, most Asian immigrants seem immune to this pervasive sense of entitlement.
Drunken Sailor| 11.14.12 @ 11:59AM
Agreed, there are fewer incentives since we have become overly concerned about political correctness. Can't have anyone feeling left out.
Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 1:23PM
We need a man to run who wants to win enough to rip up the other side. I think Allen West would make a great Candidate, regardless of the fact that he lost his current district. He's got the fire in the belly, and the next Democratic nominee for POTUS is going to be White. They've got no one on the bench who's Black after Obama except The Wookie. And if I were West, and running against her, I'd be calling her a Wookie all day long.
OregonBuzz| 11.14.12 @ 10:06AM
A significant number of so-called Americans have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers. An equally significant number of so-called Representatives, Senators etc., have discovered that they can buy the votes they need to stay in their do nothing jobs by handing out the largesse to the indigent. No one seems yet to have embraced the question; who provides the largesse? Margaret Thatcher put it succinctly; "The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money."
Or to consider an older philosopher's point of view; "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus
PolishKnight| 11.14.12 @ 10:13AM
I respect Sowell for his willingness to support civil rights initiatives for white males which is why I'm puzzled that he, of all people, doesn't see the obvious: As long as the Republican party doesn't actively protect the rights of their electorate, then they will continue to not only see poor turnout (such as in Pennsylvania and Ohio) of white males for their candidates but also encourages the non-white non-male Democrat base to show up.
This is NOT pandering. If Republicans understand the need for a healthy "defense" or even offense in protecting the nation's interests and looking out for the pocketbooks of the wealthy from being stolen by socialists, why is it so unreasonable to protect white males from 2nd class status in universities and the workplace (not to mention also the courts such as family courts and even criminal court.)
When a leftist organization commissioned a study of profiling to traffic officers, they found that black men and women were stopped more often than whites, true, but white women could flirt their way out of a ticket. They quietly killed it because white women (at the time) were the most important segment of the Democrat party. I wonder if that's true anymore...
But yeah, go back to 1980 and try to win in 2016. It worked GREAT in 2012!!!
Petronius| 11.14.12 @ 10:43AM
The Republican problem is the Problem people have with Republicans. They have enough wealth to insulate themselves from all the impositions of Liberal Government that invade the homes of every average American. They won't fight the Left because they don't give a rat's rear. Besides they are deathly afraid some tradesman's son might want to date their daughters or join one of their clubs. Pat Buchanan nailed this to their doors 20 years ago after they back stabbed him. "They're nothing but Snobs." And these Snobs will do nothing to restore Our Freedom and least of all any upward economic and Social mobility. That suits Them and the left just fine.
JD| 11.14.12 @ 10:52AM
Consider the logic of your post for a moment. If all Republicans were the rich snobs you portray them to be, how did Romney get 57 million votes?
Petronius| 11.14.12 @ 12:10PM
We had No other choice. And with 3 lost generations of infantile supplicants voting Democrat from now on, nobody in politics will dare play the Adult and do what must be done. Spank the lot of them and send them to bed without their benefits. Couple that with the fact that the Real government is the beltway clique, and ask why anybody continues attempting to beat them politically.
Tom Kyba| 11.14.12 @ 11:23AM
You nailed it again.
JP| 11.14.12 @ 11:32AM
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, or predict that within a generation most Americans will look like a cross of J-Lo and Dr Dre, look at the CDC's 2011 birthrate stats.
Over-all the US has the lowest GFR (General Birth Rate) since records have been kept. The GFR for 2011 was 63 births/1000 females. This is one of the largest 1 year drops ever (5%); the one ethnic group that drove this decrease was Hispanics. Hispanics saw a whopping 10% drop in births from 2010-2011. Additionally, the Census bureau calculated that over 3 million Hispanics returned to Mexico since 2008 (Mexico has a far healthier economy than ours).
A little known fact is that Hispanic birthrates have been falling for years as 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics immigrants have no more children than Caucasian Americans. It has only been first generation Hispanics that have been having surplus children (more than 2.1 children per female). And this demogrpahic saw a plunge in birthrates in 2011.
Over-all the TFR (Total Fertility Rate) for the US dropped from 2.1 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2011. In Mexico itself, the TFR in 1970 was 6.1; but now it is about 2.4 births per female. If trends continue, Mexico's birthrate will fall below replacement levels by 2020.
Drunken Sailor| 11.14.12 @ 12:01PM
Compare that to the number of abortions and I would be surprised if they are not inversely proportional.
CJW| 11.14.12 @ 1:07PM
One of the most consistent facts of demography is that people have fewer children as their income increases. They spend more time in school, postpone marriage and children, and then want only two children to give them the "best." When I was in grade school, the average family was 5 to 7 (Irish, Italian, Polish Catholic school). Now in my children's school the average is two children, and many have only one.
This has been the pattern for most groups in the USA.
Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 1:24PM
CJW: and then add abortion, and you have our entitlement problem.
Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 1:25PM
JP: and Europe, outside of the Stooge kids (named Mo), has a birth rate of about 1.4. They're dead.