Is the GOP Pushing Minority Voters to the Left?

Shikha Dalmia and Grover Norquist on Republican's Anti-Immigration Stance

"The reason that Republicans cannot win Latinos - or other minorities for that matter - is because Republicans counter liberal 'Santa' version of big government with what I call the 'Darth-Vader' idea of big government, " says Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst at the Reason Foundation, during  FreedomFest 2013 in Las Vegas.

"What Republicans show Latinos and other voters is not the humane and kind version of limited government."

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, joined Dalmia in discussing how the GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric and political position is pushing minority voters to the left.

About 36 minutes.

Edited by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Paul Detrick and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    "Republicans counter liberal 'Santa' version of big government with what I call the 'Darth-Vader' idea of big government

    and to prove my point, I've invited Grover "Bathtub" Norquist here today"

  • Skip||

    Hispanics were voting for Democrats when Republicans were much more liberal on immigration. Yes they were slightly more supportive to Republicans than they are now, but not that much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Yes they were slightly more supportive to Republicans than they are now, but not that much.

    Well, in elections with close margins that 'slightly more supportive' can be the difference between winning and losing, no?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The percentage of hispanics that voted for Poppy Bush in 1988, after Reagan's amnesty was lower than the percentage that voted for Reagan in 1980 or 1984.

    The republican presidential candidates that got the largest percentage of hispanic votes were Richard Nixon in 1972 and Bush the lesser in 2004.

    Hispanics consistently poll higher levels of support for large government than the population as a whole.

  • Skip||

    Absolutely. When the Democrats run rich, out of touch, pasty guys, we have a shot at over 1/3 of the Hispanic vote. But I don't think the Dems will be dumb enough to run people like Kerry and Gore in the near future.

  • PapayaSF||

    The two current frontrunners, Hillary and Biden, both seem pretty rich, out of touch, and pasty to me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is a hard argument to make that W. Bush was a more big government figure than H.W. Bush.

  • Square||

    I don't think it's hard at all. I think you have a clear trajectory - Reagan, while hardly the libertarian he's often sentimentalized as, was probably the most anti-big government president we've had since Coolidge. Bush I, in contract, was a big government Republican who wound up embracing some of Reagan's small government ideas. Bush II was just a big government guy, pure and simple.

  • BMFPitt||

    No. Not it is not.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Shrub helped create a new entitlement in Medicare Part D; Poppy did no such thing.

    Shrub further federalized education with NCLB; Poppy didn't.

    Shrub recreated the surveillance state that went into hibernation after Nixon; Poppy didn't

    Shrub initiated two open ended ground wars and made nation building the centerpeice of his presidency. Poppy started a limited war and the wisest and bravest thing that he did was stop at the Kuwaiti border instead of invading Iraq.

    Shrub expanded the regulatory state with McCain Feingold, NCLB, Sarbannes-Oxley and a general expansion of the federal register. Poppy expanded the regulatory state with extensions to the CAA, ADA and a general expansion of the federal register.

    Shrub believed in and pushed for fiscal 'solutions' to recessions with the his signature tax cuts, stimulus and infamous bailouts of 08. Poppy lost re-election in large part because his 'do-nothing' response to the 1991 recession was successfully cast as mean and uncaring.

    Federal spending grew much faster under Shrub than under Poppy.

    Overall, both sucked but Bush the lesser was much worse.

  • Redmanfms||

    Poppy started a limited war and the wisest and bravest thing that he did was stop at the Kuwaiti border instead of invading Iraq.

    Minor nitpick, Iraq was invaded through the Western desert during the Gulf War.

    Insofar as territory wasn't occupied and regimes weren't changed, you are entirely correct though.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Texas GOP has been there and done that. They used to be all THEY TRK R JRBS and then they smartened up last year and stopped with that crap. Now Hispanic don't hate them.

    As a matter of fact Texas is getting more Republican as it gets more Hispanic which disproves the nativist bullshit about THEY TRK R VOTES. Nativists peddle that because they WANT to believe it not because it is.

  • ||

    Good point. Just look how the 3 million mostly Hispanic immigrants legalized under the IRCA in 1986 under a Republican president and senate mushroomed into a solid voting bloc for the GOP.

    Not that libertarians should particularly care, any Republican voter or politician that buys that shit is historically illiterate.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course there were some events that might have occurred between then and now.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The republicans share of hispanic vote dropped in 1988. What intervening event happened between 1986 and 1988?

  • Fluffy||

    Ronald Reagan left office.

    Poppy Bush got a lower percentage of EVERY group than Reagan did in 1984.

    "We did worse in this election than we did when we had the most popular politician in the last two generations running against a guy who was a joke and a national embarrassment! Gosh, it must be the result of our policies!" - VG

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He got a lower percentage of the hispanic votes cast

    Maths is hard.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Um. Apparently, so is thinking before you type.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -What intervening event happened between 1986 and 1988?

    They chose a different candidate? Two years of conservative anti-immigrant activists running around screaming about 'amnesty' and the brown peril?

  • Cytotoxic||

    But maybe we can repeat it and then bitch about brown people not voting for us!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Two years of conservative anti-immigrant activists running around screaming about 'amnesty' and the brown peril?

    Do you have a cite for that happening in the 1986-88 timeframe? I sure don't remember it then. In the 90s sure, but I'm pretty sure the hispanics weren't time travelers in 1988.

  • DJF||

    Who says that immigrants have to be pushed to be left wing?

    For example in the last election in Mexico the top two political parties are both associated with the Socialist International and got a total of 70% of the vote. And the third party is more pragmatic democrat then libertarian. Doesn’t seem like Mexicans need any push to be left wing.

  • Eric Bana||

    The top two parties are PRI and PAN, not PRI and PRD. PAN is not a part of Socialist International. Even though PRI is a part of Socialist International, it doesn't seem any more far gone than the Democratic Party here in the U.S. (which, granted, isn't saying much). The top two parties (PRI and PAN) are sort of analogous to the Republican and Democratic parties--they both basically push big-government solutions with perhaps some differences in social issues.

    The good thing is that Mexicans in my experience by and large always say the government's good for nothing and doesn't really make a difference. Unfortunately that's not enough to change things for the better.

  • DJF||

    No, the top two parties in the last election were

    Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) 38.15%
    Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) 31.64%

    National Action Party (PAN) 25.40%

  • Eric Bana||

    That's just one presidential election in one year.
    -PAN has had two presidents of three in the last twelve years, PRD has had zero.
    -PAN currently has many more seats in both houses of Congress than PRD.
    -PAN also has more governorships than PRD (just by one, but PRI knocked both of them out in terms of governorships).
    I'd say the top two parties are PRI and PAN although PRD is also important.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Also, the PRI-which is currently in power-just passed some really important and beneficial legislation regarding teachers (over which they went ape) and is going to introduce market-reforms to the oil sector.

    But they irredentist socialists to nativist mouthbreathers.

  • The Knuckle||

    You were great in the Astronaut's Wife.

  • ||

    Latinos of all nationalities break Democratic 2 to 1 over Republican though. And contra the stereotype, they tend to hold slightly more liberal social views as well. Aside from party affiliation they aren't that terribly out of step with the rest of America though.

  • GregMax||

    The problem is people are discussing the politics of immigration rather then the policies necessary to make our economy thrive again. Simply adding more tax payers assumes that our problem is not enough tax revenues (or votes for a particular party!). We need to change the balance of productivity to population, so we aren't simply bringing in people to solve short term problems with our collectivist pyramid scheme.

  • fish_remote||

    We need to change the balance of productivity to population, so we aren't simply bringing in people to solve short term problems with our collectivist pyramid scheme.

    HEY.....! Shut up man. you want everyone to figure out our plan.

    /pelosi

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unfortunately that would require a basic understanding of economics which is not had by most politicians, propoganda minions, nor the general public. They're not going to teach any of that in school.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Agreed.

    The way to appeal to hispanic voters is through strong economic growth and hands-off social policies; not by pandering on immigration.

    It won't pay off immediately but overtime as hispanic immigrants move up the economic ladder. The democrat strategy is to keep them poor, dependent and stupid.

  • XM||

    How can we implement policies that improve the economy, when most of these minority voters are surely against it? If there was a vote to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars in California, it would do down by the slimmest margins, with most of the support coming from the Latinos.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Hispanics also associate the following with GOP policy-

    Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers:

    There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

    from Jan 2010.

    http://articles.washingtonpost.....households

    That doesn't help the GOP with anyone.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course if you pick 1999 and 2009 as your two points of comparison you will see a 'decade of no job growth.' But this sort of hides the fact that here four years later than that last point our jobs situation is still terrible, and we have not had a Republican in charge for five years.

  • Sevo||

    Shreek's an itinerant cherry picker.

  • fish_remote||

    He's just a good TEAM player Sevo.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Just citing the Washington Post.

    The aughts were a failure of big government policy starting with NCLB (failure), Medicare Prescription Welfare (failure), Iraq War (failure), Big Housing (failure), and Big Federal Spending (failure).

    You would think someone here would agree with me on this but instead they rally to defend Bush and the GOP.

  • ||

    Um big housing and big federal spending didn't start under Bush dipshit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think the 'starting' refers to 'starting with Bush' but rather refers to the beginning of a chronological list of failures.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bush accelerated both considerably.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Bush accelerated both considerably.

    While it is always good to remember how terrible the last GOP administration was, it is also not as if Obama has put any brakes on that 'acceleration.'

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Actually, there has been substantial job growth since Jan 2010 - some 4-5 million iirc.

    Nevertheless, I recall reading Karl Rove's strategy for a permanent GOP majority and it counted on the Latino bloc (with fundies and the elderly) as the map toward GOP dominance.

  • ||

    Isn't almost all of that "job growth" part-timers?

  • XM||

    Unfortunately, more jobs are being lost, more people are dropping out of the workforce, and income levels have dropped to historic lows.

    And the job situation and poverty level for blacks and Latinos? Among the worst in recent history.

    Most jobs posted online are temp assignments, part time, or contractor positions. You'll get no bennies, will get paid in cash (no bennies) and likely won't sign a contract. If you apply, good luck getting a response - unless it's an insurance agent position or something.

    Even the union claims that the 40 hour a week jobs are in serious jeopardy.

  • Square||

    This is a straw man. Hispanic support for Democrats doesn't have anything to do with the relative success of different parties' economic policies.

    They don't like Republicans because the Republican Party is willing to court the immigrant-hating vote. If you have one party hinting that they want your kind chased out of the country, and you have the other wanting to give you free things, it's not hard to see which way you're going to be inclined to lean.

  • Dweebston||

    Several years of unsustainable monetary-driven growth followed by years of suicide by regulation results in no net job creation? Color me unsurprised.

  • Skip||

    Hmmmmmm, who was President for the entire year of 2000? If only I could remember....

  • PapayaSF||

    And which party took over the House in 2007...?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Whatever. Our policies should be created based on what's best for the country, not to pander to specific groups. Pandering is the problem, not the solution. If the policy is bad for the country, change the policy for that reason, not because it will help you shore up some demographic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would rather say if the policy is not just, then it should be changed for that reason, and not supported, or opposed because it will shore up a demographic for your preferred party or for its opponent.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Pandering is the problem, not the solution.

    Next you're going to tell me Nancy Pelosi was wrong when she said THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CUT.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We're one police military vehicle away from complete anarchy. In fact the anarchist already control congress. Only the unions can save us now.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Was anyone here masochistic enough to watch Shika talk about immigration for 36 minutes?

  • Killazontherun||

    Lovely and charming, why yes she is. Would I watch her flail at the same talking points for 36min I've seen else where? No.

  • Acosmist||

    The Open Borders, Hooray Amnesty Republican elite is ANTI-IMMIGRATION? What do you want to do, forcibly move the entire world to the US? Because that might be the only way to get more pro-immigration than this GOP.

    Holy shit, you're stupid.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I take it you are not fan of every platform the LP has put out?

  • Virginian||

    Uh you can be a fan of loosened immigration without being a fan of what either party is selling here. You know that right?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Holy shit this guy is insane enough to be Merican.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bad ideas never die.

    Insurance is an accepted economic vehicle that’s been around for more than 200 years. You can insure nearly everything from a rock concert to a wedding ring. Why not guns? As the Huffington Post notes:

    “The normal way in our society that we deal with dangerous activities that affect the public is to require insurance. Having this requirement has a number of benefits: it provides for victims, it allows insurance companies to press for safety with rates and other means, and it creates a sense of responsibility for the insured.”

    Insurance is protection. Terrorism coverage is being sold. My wife and I were even required to buy a short-term policy just to hold a political rally in my quiet town (which we viewed more as a chilling effect on our particular form of political speech).

    Interestingly, he previously dismissed out of hand any possibility that the costs of insurance might adversely affect gun shops. Also, it might be nice if he recognized the distinction between insuring against the possibility of being the victim of terrorism and the possibility of being a spree killer.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Also:

    Wouldn’t Poor People Be Deprived of Their Gun Rights?

    No. They can still buy guns, but like everyone else they’d have to buy insurance and receive the same treatment. If they’re responsible owners, they will get the best premium rates.

    Presto! It will work because I say it will.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I dunno. I wouldn't mind seeing Flo shill for firearms insurance. The ads would be hilarious.

  • Sevo||

    How 'bout the Nationwide gal who looks like she just farted in a crowd?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Hey, if we're going to do that, why not demand pundit insurance. Any time a pundit pushes a stupid statist idea with horrible results, the insurance would have to pay out to those negatively effected. If they’re responsible pundits, they will get the best premium rates.

  • PapayaSF||

    Why not criminal insurance? We know that children of unwed mothers in the ghetto are much more likely to grow up to become criminals who endanger the lives and property of others. So the mothers should be forced to buy insurance to create a sense of responsibility and to provide for victims. If they are responsible parents, they can get a refund when their kids turn 30.

    I love channeling Jonathan Swift!

  • juliajuli1||

    my classmate's half-sister makes $72 every hour on the internet. She has been without a job for eight months but last month her payment was $16159 just working on the internet for a few hours.Here's the site to read more......

    -------------------
    http://www.Rush60.com

  • mtrueman||

    I read Charles Krauthammer on this very topic in the wake of Obama's re-election.

    Come on, Shikha and Amanda! If a guy who's idea of fun is diving into empty swimming pools can scoop yous, your future in punditry is not bright.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Election after election has seen the Texas GOP gain as Texas becomes more and more Latino. Guess what? White people like Santa Claus economics too!

  • Knoss||

    But what does economic issues mean? Does it mean giving free stuff or does it mean policies that make it easier to start a business, become a tradesperson, or get a job.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Hi Merican.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    The problem that I have with these sorts of articles is that it assumes that Democratic voters don't really support much of the Democratic agenda. I'm not what evidence is there of that. Not to mention there is this notion that if the Republicans die off than the Libertarians can take over. I don't see much of that evidence of that either. Libertarians have no seats on Detroit City Council after all, not to mention no influence in Chicago, New York City or California. And why do the polls show that Hillary and Biden will defeat Rand Paul by a larger margin than Chris Christie?

  • PapayaSF||

    Yee-up.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And why do the polls show that Hillary and Biden will defeat Rand Paul by a larger margin than Chris Christie?

    Meaningless.

  • Knoss||

    The problem with the GOP is that they need a platform based on a complete vision of limited government and using institutions to create a friendly business environment. This means that limited government needs to be promoted in areas like agriculture, immigration, drug policy, aboriginal land policy. They also need to provide a meaningful reforms in areas like healthcare where they have rejected Democrat proposals.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    The problem with any "meaningful reform" is that it means reducing free shit somewhat which the Dems and the media will demagogue.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, but clever positioning can finesse this. E.g.: cutting back the powers of the FDA increases freedom to take experimental medication, to buy from small farmers, etc. Cutting back farm subsidies to corporations and millionaires is pure populist libertarianism. There are lots more like that.

  • Square||

    I agree with PapayaSF - the libertarian message is always messaged with the wrong crowd in mind. The message seems to always come from the perspective of "look how much better it would be for us high-salaried professionals and business owners if we didn't have to pay for so much shit for all you lazy poor people."

    When the message should be "look how much more you'll get to have for how much less when we have an economy that allows you to produce things and buy things freely, so that you can earn money and things will be cheap insead of relying on a bunch of stupid bureaucrats to give you something crappy after you spend 6 hours filling out paperwork about what race you are."

  • PapayaSF||

    Another problem with the libertarian message is that it's too often purist. We didn't get into the semi-socialist mess we're in because Socialists won elections on a platform of nationalizing the means of production. We got here because they took over the Democratic party and worked incrementally.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    So can someone explain to me why there are quite a few commenters here that will complain about out of state transplants moving in and voting for bad legislation?

  • PapayaSF||

    Ha, good point.

  • ||

    Maybe the commenters don't like bad legislation.

    Note that in your comment you state that out of state transplants vote for bad legislation.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    Note that in your comment you state that out of state transplants vote for bad legislation.

    Hey I pointing out that other commenters have said such things not that I agree with such things.

  • Knoss||

    That may have been true for the Mulroney Conservatives, but the Harper Conservatives have begun to crack down on foreign workers by cutting access. This has been the strongest in Atlantic Canada because of the high number of Canadians on EI. Unfortunately, the problem is with EI which bases work requirements and payment length on unemployment, and trapped Atlantic Canada and the North in a cycle of high unemployment and welfare dependence.

  • 4thaugust1932||

    USA is concerned about the creeping/uncivilized Caste system due Immigrants from India.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....countries/

  • DarrenM||

    I did not watch the video. The firewall here prevents this. There is anti-immigration sentiments in both parties. Union bosses want increased immigration because it means more union members forced to pay into the coffers. (It doesn't really matter if an existing union member gets tossed as long as there are two more to take his place.) The rank and file not-so-much. While there is certainly opposition to immigration in general, I wonder to what degree Dalmia is conflating legal and illegal immigration. Either way, I still suspect it's not a terribly good idea to import even more low-skilled labor than we already have.

  • christopherolken||

    my buddy's aunt makes $83/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $12861 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Report
    http://www.Rush60.com

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE