Election 2016

The GOP Is Writing Off 30 Percent of the American Electorate

Richard Nixon pulled about one-third of black voters in 1960. Donald Trump is courting 0 percent. And that may not even be Republican's biggest problem.

|

Todd Krainin, Reason

According to some polls, Donald Trump has been pulling as little as 0 percent of the black vote in key battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Zero percent! That's mind-boggling and sure, it might pick up after his recent speeches identifying with the plight of African Americans living in urban areas that have been under Democratic control for decades.

But if we're being honest, it's not going to change very much. That's not all Trump's fault, either. It represents a decades-long trend that has seen Republicans essentially abandon all hopes of cracking the lowest possible double digits among black voters. In 2012, Mitt Romney got just 6 percent of black votes. (One Republican who has done better is Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who earned 26 percent of the black vote in his 2014 re-election race).

It wasn't always this way, of course, and looking at how Republicans went from being the default party of black voters after the Civil War to being a pariah among them is a way of understanding one highly probable future for the GOP as a minor party that represents a smaller and smaller bloc of voters who identify as "white" and "American" in strictly nativist terms.

The GOP's declining appeal to black voters—again, approaching zero in the Year of the Donald!—is paralleled by the party's declining appeal to Hispanic voters, too. According to the Census, blacks currently make up about 13 percent of the population while Hispanics account for about 18 percent. In an August 11 Fox News Latino poll, only 20 percent of Latinos support him, lower even than Mitt Romney's dismal 27 percent showing among Latinos in 2012, which was itself lower than John McCain's 31 percent in 2008. Between blacks and Latinos, then, the Republican Party is effectively writing off almost 31 percent of the vote before the first ballot is cast in November. And given broad demographic trends, things can only get worse for the GOP.

What's going on here and what it does it say about Republicans and electoral politics in the 21st century? And what does it say about the possibility for a third party such as the Libertarians to drive up their own national numbers? The short answers: Absent a different agenda and outreach to groups they alternately demonize and ignore, the GOP will harden into an awful party of racial and ethnic resentment. For the LP, which embraces tolerance, diversity, and economic mixing and progress, the sky's the limit, especially if the Democrats continue to take minorities for granted.

Factcheck.org

As recently as 1960, the Republican Richard Nixon managed to get about 30 percent of the black vote. From the Civil War on, blacks had favored the "party of Lincoln" for self-evident reasons. Southern Democrats were segregationists and they worked hard not just at disenfranchising blacks at election time but in every way possible. Blacks weren't even allowed to attend Democratic national conventions until 1924. While he was no great friend to African Americans, Franklin Roosevelt began to win a majority of their votes in the 1930s, mostly for the same reasons he won a majority of nearly every group's votes during his four presidential campaigns. Blacks were more likely to be poor than average and they warmed to various FDR programs aimed at ameliorating poverty. Harry Truman, writes Brooks Jackson, won 77 percent of the black vote in 1948, the first year that a majority of blacks identified as Democrats (among other things, Truman integrated the armed forces and took civil rights more seriously than most of his predecessors).

While Eisenhower in '56 and Nixon in '60 did relatively well with black voters, Barry Goldwater's refusal to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964—and his willingness to run a campaign that tolerated (if it didn't actively court) segregationists—effectively ended the Republican Party's relationship with blacks. As former segregationists such as Strom Thurmond crossed the aisle to join the Republicans, the transition was complete and for the past 40-plus years, Republican presidential candidates have struggled to crack double digits with black voters. Running as the "law and order" candidate in 1968 and targeting urban violence (by war demonstrators and race rioters alike), Nixon no longer had much appeal for black voters. The last GOP candidate to crack double digits was George W. Bush in 2004, when he pulled 11 percent.

Something similar is happening with Latino voters, although the trend line is less uni-directional. In 2004, George W. Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote (some reports put it a few points higher), but since then it has declined precipitously, down to Trump's pre-election share of 20 percent. The typical conservative Republican response to this is to invoke a master plan by Democrats and/or moral and ideological failings of Latinos. A few years back, I debated Ann Coulter at an event hosted by the great Independence Institute of Colorado. Among the topics was immigration. Coulter, who has taken credit for Donald Trump's pro-deportation stance in this election, claimed that Ted Kennedy was behind the push to bring in millions of Mexicans and other unmeltable ethnics from Africa, Asia, and especially Latin America, all of whom would inevitably vote for Democrats. "I don't think any time in the history of the world has a country changed its ethnic composition overnight like that," said Coulter, following a line of thought that is popular among many conservatives, right-wingers, and Republicans. "It was done by design. It was done to help the Democrats, and it did help the Democrats."

Pew Research

In fact, the immigration reform enacted in the mid-1960s, much in the spirit of Civil Rights legislation. Its chief authors were New York Rep. Emanuel Celler and Michigan Sen. Philip Hart, and its explicit goal was partly to route around the patently racist quotas from the 1920s that had been based on "national origins." Disturbed by the rise in immigrants from central and southern Europe, unapologetically racist lawmakers in the '20s laws moved to limit the number of Jews, Italians, Poles, Slavs, Irish, and other undesirable Europeans. New limits were pegged to percentages of the 1890 Census, when there were fewer foreigners from "bad" countries in the United States. The '60s reforms, on the other hand, were specifically designed to let Americans of European descent bring over parents and grandparents who had been stranded in the old country first by the Depression and then by World War II. Even as it put family reunification front and center in deciding who could come here, it also allowed for high-skilled folks to emigrate. It was passed against a backdrop of lower and lower levels of foreign-born people in the United States. By 1970, just 4.7 percent of the country was foreign-born, down from a peak of almost 15 percent in 1910.

By the mid-'60s, though, relatively few Europeans were interested in coming to America. Some of them were trapped behind the Iron Curtain and had no easy way West. Throughout free European nations, things were relatively good for most people after a truly grim period that started with World War I. The immigrants that have come to America post-1965 are mostly from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia. In the late 1980s, Ronald Reagan pushed hard to create a pathway to legalization and citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were overwhelmingly of Latino heritage. So you might want blame (or thank) Reagan far more than Ted Kennedy for changing our "ethnic composition overnight."

But you can and should blame Republicans for failing to appeal to ethnically diverse Americans in the 21st century. Demograhics are not destiny in politics but ever since the mid-'60s, the GOP has done a masterful, if not always conscious, job of making sure that blacks and Latinos feel unwelcome.

In a great piece at Politico, Josh Zeitz writes that "unlike earlier waves, 90 percent of new Americans since 1965 hail from outside Europe—from countries like Mexico, Brazil, the Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Taiwan, India and the Dominican Republic." Where conservatives tend to see an undifferentiated blob of threats to American identity, Zeitz underscores that post-1965 immigrants "include evangelical Christians, traditional Catholics, anti-statist refugees and the kind of upwardly mobile, economic strivers whom the GOP courted assiduously in past decades."

Had the GOP worked to engage newer, non-European immigrants, the party wouldn't be in the position it's found itself in, where only rare presidential candidates such as Reagan and Bush II can appeal to one-third or more of a rapidly growing part of the citizenry. About the only time contemporary Republicans view immigrants as individuals is when they are signaling out the precise threat each different sub-group represents to the nation:

GXSplinter, Imgur.com

It's a party whose presidential nominee uniformly disparaged Mexicans as "rapists" and "killers" and called into question the impartiality of an American-born federal judge of Mexican ancestry. It's a party that casts a big enough tent to include congressional luminaries like Steve King (for every immigrant child "who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert"); Michelle Bachman (who claimed that a top aide to Hillary Clinton had family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood); Peter King (who contends that "80 percent, 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists"); Louie Gohmert (the GOP's in-House intellectual, who raised concerns that Muslim immigrants might give birth to "terror babies" who "could be raised and coddled as future terrorists"); and Don Young (who apparently didn't receive the memo explaining that "wetback" is no longer a term used in polite company.)

"By 2050, non-Hispanic white Americans will comprise less than half of the U.S. population," writes Zeitz. "Had the GOP focused more on ideology and less on skin color, the party could have thrived from the immigrant influx."

But it didn't do that, any more than it has reached out to African Americans on a regular basis. There have been well-intentioned and sincere efforts by some Republicans (Jack Kemp comes to mind, and more recently Rand Paul), but the instinct among most conservatives and Republicans is to ignore issues in the African-American community or to reflexively side with the police, drug warriors, and others who are viewed negatively by blacks. When it comes to Latinos and non-European immigrants, the same distancing act dominates, along with calls to establish English as an official language and appeals to protect bankrupt entitlement programs from pilfering by illegal immigrants who are simultaneously supernaturally lazy and so hard-working they take all of our jobs.

There is very little reason to believe that the Republican Party will pursue any meaningful interaction with racial and ethnic minorites or economic refugees, even when, as Zeitz underscores, they might have strong ties built on common religious and entrepreneurial interests. The attitudes of so many of the GOP's presidential nominees and boosters in the press have been resolutely hostile to seeing Mexican and Latino immigration as anything other than a scourge upon the land. A few years back, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio worked on comprehensive immigration refrom legislation until he was shouted down by his own party. By the time he announced for president, he was only interested in talking about cutting off the flow of newcomers. Toward the end of primary season, the Cuban-American Ted Cruz took to attacking Donald Trump as soft on immigration because the billionaire had a "door" in his much-discussed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. National Review, arguably the flagship publication of the conservative right, has been calling for reductions in immigration from Latin America for decades now and attacked Trump for being insufficiently tough on the issue.

The Republicans' unwillingness to interact with a more ethnically and religiously diverse America can be the Libertarian Party's gain. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld are the only candidates that are effusively pro-immigration, pro-trade, and socially tolerant. Coming from a border state with a large Latino population, Johnson in particular is in a position to talk about the benefits of immigration and the issues faced by newcomers and their families as well as by longtime residents. His focus on the sharing economy, school choice, and rolling back federal regulations that hamper entrepreneurship also should play well with both blacks and Latinos.

But none of this is easily achieved. Gaining support among any constituency is the result of hard work and years of toiling side by side and shoulder to shoulder. The Republican Party—including Donald Trump in his recent outreach to African Americans—isn't wrong to say that racial and ethnic minorities aren't benefitting from Democratic Party policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Social Security retirement benefits ultimately screw over blacks, who have shorter lifespans; protecting union teachers from competition by charters and other forms of school choice hurts low-income minorities most of all; far from welcoming illegals from Latin America, the Obama administration has deported record numbers and split up tens of thousands of families; and on and on.

But simply rattling off such talking points isn't going to win new votes. That only comes from concerted actions that start at the neighborhood level and work out and up through levels of power and government policy. The political opportunity is there, but it remains to be seen who, if anyone, will take it.

NEXT: The perils of condemning parents for exposing kids to supposed dangers that aren't real

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.

  1. I am so sick of these motherfucking identity groups in my motherfucking politics!

    1. ok,nick nice try anyway

      1. sorry citizen this was not a reply

  2. The LP is essentially an all white, all male party, Nick.

    1. yeah but a lot of gays think we’re fabulous so there is at least that.

    2. Let’s see, there’s Kmele Foster, and…………..

      Well, I’m pretty sure there must be a few other black libertarians, but I sure can’t think of any.

      1. I just remembered Janice Rogers Brown. I don’t know if she has ever actually publicly identified herself a libertarian, but she definitely talks the talk, so I’ll include her. So there’s two.

        1. Walter Williams and T Sowell definitely count under that rubric.

          1. You’re absolutely right, and I’m embarrassed I forget them! Especially since they’re two of our best modern thinkers.

            1. Jason Riley might count too.

          2. Except for his quote about how he agrees with libertarian principles but not libertarian fetishes. So no pot or Mexican ass sex for him. Not sure we can call him a libertarian. SMH

            1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown hardest hit

            2. Yes but the key to being a libertarian is not indulging in pot or Mexican ass sex yourself, it is being supportive of others rights to do so

          3. Uh, no, the latter is definitely a conservative. Old school sort that shares a lot with classical liberalism, to be sure, but still playing for team C.

            1. This. Look up Sowell’s foreign policy positions, particularly in regards to Iran. They’d make Richman curl up into a ball and cry.

        2. Counting folks as “libertarian” that refuse to identify as libertarian is how we got this “libertarian moment” in the first place.

    3. Yes, but if this election proves to be a pivotal moment for the LP… we won’t want to make the same mistakes that the GOP did. It’s sad how much Republicans make zero effort to reach out and learn how many Black voters are angry and upset with Democrats, and how they actually have so much in common with Republicans.

      The LP would be wise to realize Black voters have had it with the Democrats, but basically see no other option. It is an easy group of voters that can be plucked away from Democrats, if the LP makes the effort to just explain why they should vote for us.

    4. Perhaps, but at least it isn’t built into the party platform. That’s the problem with the GOP these days. Much of its domestic and foreign policy is driven by concerns that are racialist, if not outright racist. And, unfortunately, these planks also appear to be the most appealing to GOP base voters, which keeps them front and center.

  3. Or maybe they don’t bother because every time a team red guy tries to talk to a minority group their words are sent through a proggie logic bender and then magically turn into racism.

    The last time they tried the candidate uttered 2 fucking words: “you people” and he was obliterated over that.

    1. Yesterday I saw Trump say ” there is my black guy” I thought that would be all that the media would talk about today. the media has let me down.

      1. If you are talking about the comment I am thinking of, that actually happened months ago, and was all the media would talk about for about a week afterwards, so keep the faith.

        From the New York Times, June 3, 2016:

        REDDING, Calif. ? In a speech in which he promoted the backing of Chinese-Americans in Los Angeles and called protesters at a rally in San Jose “thugs,” Donald J. Trump on Friday sought to project support from African-Americans for his campaign on a single man in the audience.

        Mr. Trump, at a rally here, began speaking about a previous rally in Arizona in which a black supporter was arrested after punching a protester.

        “We had a case where we had an African-American guy who is a fan of mine,” Mr. Trump said of an event in Arizona in March. “In fact I want to find out what’s going on with him.”

        As his voice trailed off, Mr. Trump noticed a man in the crowd.

        “Oh look at my African-American over here,” Mr. Trump said. “Are you the greatest? Do you know what I’m talking about?”

  4. I bet Trump will get more black votes than sorry-ass Gary Johnson does. How is he polling among African-Americans these days?

    1. In my admittedly small sample size of mostly 30-40 year old PA/NJ tech professionals, probably 30-40%. Disgusted with Hillary and unwilling to stomach Trump. And probably would be polling higher w/o Trump, since a lot of the Hillary votes are actually purely anti-Trump.

  5. Indeed. It Is Known that Trump is a racist,misogynist, hateful bigot, and the Republican Party has nothing but contempt for minorities. No evidence needs to be adduced.

    It. Is. Known.

    1. Of course there’s plenty of evidence too.

      1. Not really that much against African Americans though. He’s pretty much directed his ire at those damn Messicans.

        1. He’s currently using AAs as props in his campaign–not literally, as he can’t find any around.

          1. I agree, using African Americans as props is a mendacious and all around reprehensible thing to do. Trump shouldn’t do it either.

  6. Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio

    Nick signals his establishment-tool journalist chops.

    Rubio was very briefly a “Tea Party favorite” when he was challengin Charlie Crist.

    1. And then quickly got on the shit list.

    2. I like his use of double-speak “undocumented immigrant”.

      1. Yup. An immigrant that accidentally puts his green card into the washer is “undocumented”. A guy who sneaks across the border because he’s been deported three times and has a long criminal record is an illegal immigrant.

  7. tl;dr, its nick repeating things people already believe

    1. Its Nick, letting us know What Is Known.

  8. “Had the GOP focused more on ideology and less on skin color

    Really? Another party comes to mind when I think of sorting folks by color and using it as a cudgel.

    1. Incredibly naive.

      Trump doesn’t mentions skin color or race when he talks about immigration. He talks about countries, cultures, and religions.

      A purely ideological statement: “We should close down immigration of refugees and unskilled labor for awhile” is instantly converted into racism by the media, because It Is Known that Trump is a racist, so everything he says is racist.

      1. Many things he says are racist.

        1. damn, tony! are you a robo reply from the dnc??

        2. And Tony provides us with a laboratory-pure example of It Is Known. Thanks, T.

        3. And pretty much everything democrats say on race is racist. Remember Holder and Obama’s remarks on how it’s bad to be ‘color-blind?’ I.e., ‘be racist people, just make sure your racist in my favor.’

  9. One problem with that: very, very few blacks (and, for that matter, Hispanics) in the US appear to be attracted to libertarianism or other classically liberal political philosophies. If it were just a matter of perceived antipathy of conservatives towards blacks who would otherwise be attracted to classical liberalism, you would expect to see more black-friendly classical liberal parties in the same way that there are black churches when white churches rejected their black coreligionists.

    That doesn’t mean American blacks are entirely a lost cause, but it’s a much harder problem than what Nick’s polemic suggests.

    1. ^This.
      It’s one thing to say you want to engage Blacks and Hispanics. But how do you do that without giving up the principles of small government. The Republicans can have an easier time of it as they’re statists anyway but it’s a real problem for libertarians.

      1. ^This

        is why people might think libertarians are racist.

        1. Serious question: Why? What did he say that was racist?

          1. Not wanting to give special ethnic groups free goodies from the tax payers is the most racist thing there is, donchaknow?

      2. You would think an idea such as ending the War on Drugs, one of the primary bedrock planks of the libertarian party and something that truly distinguishes it from the major parties, would be a big plus in urban black America. Not to mention reigning in and cracking down on police brutality. Wouldn’t you?

        But nope. Apparently, most blacks would rather have their teeth kicked in by a black democratic cop working for a black democratic police chief working for a black democratic mayor in a democrat-controlled city than even consider voting for a libertarian. Crazy, isn’t it?

        Why, it’s almost as if the community is massively and perpetually dysfunctional or something.

        1. Barriers to entry in every job.

        2. “Why, it’s almost as if the community is massively and perpetually dysfunctional or something.”

          Your astute comment is obviously an insidious trick to keep the black man down. And implying that a relationship exists between personal freedom, personal responsibility, and prosperity? Poppycock!

          Now, get in the boxcar and prepare for reeducation.

        3. I came down to the comments to say exactly this.

          Nick is being an asshat when he implies that they aren’t getting the black vote because they are racist or some such. I’m not saying that isn’t necessarily the case, but it would certainly appear that the real reason they aren’t getting a lot of support from minority groups is because they aren’t as willing as the Democrats to bankrupt the entire nation by handing out more free things. The Democrats are the party of the poor, at least in the sense that they want everyone to be poor and are doing their absolute best to make it happen.

          And yeah, a poor person in America lives like a king compared to almost anywhere else on the entire planet, in the entire history of mankind. So what incentive is there, exactly, to vote for the party that’s saying ‘get a job to make less money than you get for free now’. None. None whatsoever.

          Thus, Nick misses the forest for the trees.

          When did having policies that favor less spending become inherently racist, Nick? I’d love to hear an answer to this since you built almost an entire house of cards of it this one concept.

          1. I would say the Repubs would be foolish to do very much to court the black vote. No matter what they do, I can’t imagine the return at the polls will be very big, and if they try to offer the black community very much more of what it demands (money down various Dem ratholes at the local level, reparations, etc.), they will alienate their base.

            1. Very much so.

              I just take umbrage at the suggestion that fiscal responsibility on a national level is somehow inherently racist. Because that seems to be the implication here. Maybe I’m ‘reading too much between the lines’ since Republicans are only fiscally conservative in comparison to the Democrats but Obama’s deficits are beyond reckless yet he received, what, 100% of the Black vote?

              Explain to me how getting 100% of the black vote is not just as racist as 0%. It strongly implies a massive amount of racism within the group that’s claiming they are the victims of racism. Both can be true, but I’m not going to shed crocodile tears over it.

              1. Fiscal responsibility is not racist, but it must be put into the proper language.

                “The American dream to have a good job and own your own home shouldn’t be out of the reach of anyone, regardless of race, creed, or anything else. Millions of Americans have been held back, caught in the sugary chains of dependency on Uncle Sweet Tooth, bribed for votes – treated like children being bribed with the cheap candy of giveaways that corrode their families and neighborhoods. People want to rise up, establish themselves as self-reliant citizens, free from Democratic policies that put them on a treadmill of dependency. It is only by taking charge of one’s own life that one becomes truly independent, truly free, truly an American. “

            2. Very true. But hell, it’s hard to tell just what their base even is anymore. Trump has had great success in alienating just about every part of the late Reaganite coalition in favor of his ignorant populist schtick. And “at least we’re not as bad as the other party,” while maybe even true (although that’s now arguable) just doesn’t seem to be resonating much beyond their tribe these days, which is pretty damning given the fundamental awfulness that is Hillary Clinton as a candidate and the Democrats as a party. So I guess it’s kind of a moot point now.

      3. Indeed, Nick G. gets no more specific than to say “outreach” or “do”. He never writes what they should say or do, or not say or not do, to get more black votes. Sure, Nixon got more blacks’ votes than subsequent Republican candidates?but will you examine what Nixon did? Or what subsequent Democrats did or said? This is such a facile piece!

        1. Yep, recommendations by the critics of the GOP relations always stop short of specifics because the only thing the Republicans could do is try to outpander the Democrats. Nobody can bring themselves to say that.

          We’re only 25% through the time period LBJ predicted for Democrat supremacy among minorities.

    2. Exactly. You can’t win minority votes in this day and age as long as you are promising mere equality.

    3. “One problem with that: very, very few people in the US appear to be attracted to libertarianism or other classically liberal political philosophies.”

      Fixed it for you.

      1. Whatever ‘ism’ we choose to live with, we humans will We humans will eventually screw it up.

  10. …Barry Goldwater’s refusal to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?and his willingness to run a campaign that tolerated (if it didn’t actively court) segregationists?effectively ended the Republican Party’s relationship with blacks.

    A while ago, I read an excellent article in something like Newsweek, or one of those types of magazines.

    Anyway the gist is that this article was written by a black woman about this very issue. And she describes at one point, pinning her libertarian friend down and demanding that he answer, in his ideal minarchist state, would a hospital be allowed to not admit her because of her skin color if the owner of the hospital so chose. And this fellow reluctantly admits that, while this is an outrageously unlikely scenario, technically yes, it is a possibility.

    And then the author says that this ends any interest she has in libertarianism or any party that endorses freedom of association, which, she claims, minorities actually know is just code for freedom to exclude blacks. Freedom of association to her is a hateful thing, used in recent history to oppress people like her, and so it is not a thing to be striven for or defended, but something to kill with fire. She (acting as if she is speaking for all blacks) basically says that support for forced association is a prerequisite for broad support from the black community.

    Anyway I thought it was an interesting look at the subject from a black person’s perspective.

    1. I read it on their website, and really wish I had bookmarked it, because I like to reference it, and otherwise there’s no reason for people to believe I’m not just making it up. I’ve tried to look it up since, but to no avail.

      1. I believe you.

        I just continue to be amazed at the skill with which the Dems have retconned the actual history of the Civil Rights Act, which passed with a large majority of Repubs voting for it, and a smaller majority of Dems voting for it. Ask damn near anyone now, though, and you’ll hear that the Dems, led by the saintly JFK and LBJ, forced it through over Repub objections.

        1. I believe it’s because Goldwater was the standard bearer of the party, so in the gestalt memory of society, that was the Official Republican Position on the issue.

          Like how the president gets blamed for, or praised for, any random shit that happens on his watch, whether he had anything to do with it or not.

          1. Let we forget, Goldwater was a founding member of the Phoenix NAACP and a desegregationist …

            1. Yes, but he wasn’t in favor of forced association, which is apparently now a crime on par with implementing the Holocaust.

              1. And again the irony because Jim Crow FORBADE freedom of association!

                I wasn’t alive, but I have to imagine that the Dems passed Jim Crow because they were afraid the white supremacy which they supported could not survive without it.

                Why else force separation and discrimination?

                1. I often ask my left acquaintances something like “would you serve Donald Trump?”

        2. There is no mind control going on. The parties had yet to completely sort in 1964. The bigger correlation was whether congresspeople were from the North or South, and many Southern Democrats still existed then. Even so, a few Confederate Democrats voted for it while zero Confederate Republicans did. It was spearheaded in Congress in the first place by Democratic leaders and it was signed into law by a Democrat.

          Since that time Southern and conservative whites have abandoned the Democrats completely, so I can’t fathom what your point might be except to defend the Republican party of 1964 as not quite so uniformly racist as the Republican party of 2016.

          1. You seriously think the Republican party of 2016 is *more* racist than either the Republican or Democratic parties of 1964?

            You dramatic queens really do know how to make it all about you, don’t you?

            1. More uniformly so. As in, completely defined by its devotion to white supremacy. It doesn’t maintain a single policy position that is not informed by such.

              1. So Bush II’s anti-AIDs initiative in Africa was a fluke in the long march to exterminating the black race? Supporting charter schools believed to improve black inner-city academic performance was a long con to make sure white people end up on top? Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley’s governorships and subsequent popularity were all a cover to elect an overwhelming tsunami of white supremacists?

                If Republicans are trying to wipe out minorities and their influence in society, they’re really taking their sweet time about it.

                1. All I really need to do is point to the demographics that support the respective parties. If 0% of blacks support Republicans these days, what does that tell you?

                  1. If 0% of blacks support Republicans these days, what does that tell you?

                    Not much, really. Could be a lot reasons for it that aren’t “Repubs are racist bigots trying to exterminate the black race.”

                    1. Pfft. Whatever R C. It’s patently obvious that all republicans, and libertarians (who, lets face it, are just republicans who like to smoke pot and have mexican ass sex), are racist bigots against all races, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations.

                    2. Well it’s gotta be a problem with them unless you’d like to posit an explanation for why an entire race is somehow duped into voting for Democrats.

                    3. Easy, Tony. One and done.

                      It’s because they’re racists.

                      If 100% of a group votes for a black man, expressly because they are a black man, what would you call that?

                      Boy, that was even easier than your usual bullshit questions. Next!

                    4. “…why an entire race…”

                      Way to completely discount any black people (or other minorities for that matter) that vote or run republican or libertarian or green party. Racist.

              2. But of course you don’t actually believe that, if you have two brain cells to rub together. It just makes you feel righteous and important to think that you’re fighting the most racist political party known to the US, rather than wasting your time on the internet posting against a corrupt outsider on Red Team while being in favor of a much more corrupt establishment insider on Blue Team.

                1. But of course you don’t actually believe that, if you have two brain cells to rub together.

                  That particular ‘if’ can only be measured with surveying equipment.

              3. Many, many Repubs are single issue voters, based on the single issue of anti-abortionism, which is clearly not a white supremacist position.

          2. Holy fuck you are stupid Tony.

            Robert Byrd was a sitting Democrat Senator until 20fucking10. Own the inherent racism of your party you fucking hack.

            1. You fucking morons always trot Sen. Byrd’s corpse out to prove that Democrats are just as racist as the party that is to this day trying to disenfranchise black and brown people. He disavowed his racist past. When’s Trump gonna disavow his present?

              1. You want to own the present? Fine, lets talk about the racism that minorities are inherently incapable of succeeding on their own merits and need government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Own that bitch.

                1. You’re never going to get anywhere telling an entire race of people that they are genetically predisposed to sucking the government tit.

              2. I’m happy to know that Obama and the Democrat controlled congress didn’t waste all of their political capital and the first two years of his presidency on a fucking handout to the insurance companies and instead focused on fixing our broken justice system and ending the war on drugs?

                What’s that? They continued the War on Drugs and continued to fuck the economy up so much that real unemployment in the black community is double that of the white community? All while playing identity politics and robbing the black community of its agency (for the learning impaired: that’s when you, as a white gay dude, think you know what’s best for someone else and don’t bother to ask them what they want. And then calling them racial epitaphs when they think for themselves.)?

                Fucking. Heroes.

                (And for the record, Trump is a bigoted blowhard asshole who wouldn’t get my vote even if he was the only person on the ballot.)

              3. Name one racist policy proposed by the GOP today? I mean, just one Tony, that’s all I’m asking. Even Trumps anti Muslim ban isn’t racist as Muslims aren’t a race and on immigration I’ve heard of no plans to make special exemptions for non Mexicans.

                Just one.

              4. Apparently the disavowed racist had a problem with African American Supreme Court judges. I wonder why.

          3. The south = racist. Politicians should just ignore that whole region lest they taint themselves with evil. Except on tax day of course.

      2. She may have been quite sincere, but looking at the increased calls for segregation at college campuses (sure to follow in other places,) much of this is pure race-loyalty — nothing more. Putting a black face on bigotry (no pun intended) does not suddenly make it pretty.

        It should not be surprising, the old south was comprised of shite segregationist voting their race over anything else.

        History, I am sure, is full of such ironies.

        1. shite segregationist

          Typo of the year. There, I’m calling it.

    2. And then the author says that this ends any interest she has in libertarianism or any party that endorses freedom of association…

      She may be interested in today’s Libertarian Party. Gary Johnson has expressed an interest in forced association. And that’s what immigration is these days, forced association, and libertarians seem to be in favor of that too.

      1. Is it not ironic, how Johnson is not really a Libertarian, Trump is not really a Republican, but they end up being the party standard bearers?

    3. She’s right about that. Libertarianism can only be implemented effectively in a democratic society to the degree that it doesn’t have extreme divisions. The incentive is for the various political parties to court communities that are antagonistic to one another with promises to require the other communities to do things for them. And who can blame them? If you fundamentally don’t have a basis for trust in the communities around you, you are going to want to make sure your own community is in the best place possible to compete against all the others.

      IMO, this is scaling political power down to the smallest possible unit and keeping power within unique communities is the best way to go. It is also why immigration can be so hazardous; it creates the type of societal conflicts that necessitate big government in the first place.

      1. “Libertarianism can only be implemented effectively in a democratic society to the degree that it doesn’t have extreme divisions.”

        Arguably, a democratic society with divisions so extreme that they constitute effectively different cultures is no longer democratic, because it no longer has a single demos to wield the kratos. Democracy can only really function on the basis of community, not on the basis of territory.

        Much like our economy is a kludge of liberal and socialist ideals, our democratic nation states are a kludge of quasi-feudal territory-based states and broad community-based nations. Without the former, establishing and enforcing jurisdiction would be difficult even using modern technology (if we managed it, we’d be heading toward a Stephensonesque society posthaste), and without the latter, you get into the sort of shallow global “democracy” celebrated by progressive technocrats, where Vox Populi is all bark and no bite.

    4. I assume there was no mention of the congressional black caucus or the United negro college fund or the naacp?

      Not being a hypocrite, I have no problem with these organizations.

      1. No, in response to both you and DWB above, I think you have to remember that to leftists, power dynamics influence what is allowable for different groups.

        So it is notbigotry when a group with less power segregates against a group with more power in any given society; it is only wrong when the more powerful group excludes the less powerful one.

        1. Chalk another one up for Orwell:

          “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

          ? George Orwell, 1984

    5. She (acting as if she is speaking for all blacks) basically says that support for forced association is a prerequisite for broad support from the black community.

      What she and the BLM-type activists are demanding nowadays is one of perpetual reparations, in the form of never-ending “mo’ money for dem programs”, proprietary social groups that are allowed to exclude whites without penalty, affirmative action policies that give high preference to black individuals–even to the point of giving scholarships and grants to students who need remedial math and reading the minute they set foot on campus, and educational curriculums that emphasize being white as a form of “original sin” that can never be washed away.

      The irony is that blacks are just going to cut their own throat doing this. Hispanics are far more numerous and Asians are far more educated on average, and they’re increasingly adopting BLM-style rhetoric to secure their own political and economic power. The black community is going to find themselves in the same place they’ve been for the last 50 years, except in this case whitey isn’t the one running things anymore.

    6. Yeah, it’s amazing how a group that, historically (and arguably currently) suffers because of other people’s “Freedom of Association” might not think it’s such a great idea.

      Especially since people rarely talk about gay bars, black hair salons, or Asian grocers when talking about “Freedom of Association”. It’s mostly brought up when talking about someone refusing service, evicting, firing, and so-on. It’s seldom brought up when talking about community centers and positive human-interest stories.

      Or, to put it in other words… humans have a pretty solid record of using “Freedom of Association” as a weapon to marginalize and harm people they don’t like, and being pretty blatant about it. In response, the marginalized and harmed folk have used “Freedom of Association” as a shield to protect themselves and survive in a society that by-and-large is (rightly or not) perceived as hostile to them. The former is what gets attached to the term. The later rarely does.

  11. What horseshit.
    When trump gave a speech last week in Wisconsin pointing out how dem/prog policies have done nothing but shit on blacks (a speech I saw no mention of in reason last week, as opposed to the big story about the Indian kid who proved trump was a racist), I put on msnbc to get the prog reaction.
    One guess as to what that the reaction was
    .
    .
    .

    Trump was racist for giving the speech in the suburbs instead of in Milwaukee.

    Every time a non dem talks about blacks they are called racist. Every time a dem says a racist thing against blacks it is ignored.

    The only sensible thing for Trump to say about the issue is what he’s been saying.

    1. +superpredators

    2. When trump gave a speech last week in Wisconsin pointing out how dem/prog policies have done nothing but shit on blacks

      Only a racist could give such a speech.

      It Is Known.

  12. Gillespie decries the GOP for there lack of racial inclusion from the podium of a philosophy that has been stereotyped, and not incorrectly so, to be an ideology of white males. I’ll be very interested in seeing how many minority votes Johnson will actually pull in. Somehow I think more minorities will vote for Trump despite his rhetoric.

    This is very ‘people in glasshouses’ Nick. You’re not preaching from a position that allows you to lambast your opponents this way. Watch as libertarians such as you offer up mealy-mouthed calls for racial support, and do not receive it. Libertarians do an utterly garbage job appealing to blacks, moreso than the GOP. Have some self-awareness.


  13. There’s nothing soft about liberal bigotry

    Quote:
    Today’s quiz: “Which political party has a ‘diversity problem’?”

    The one that initially fielded five 2016 presidential candidates, all white? Or the one whose White House contenders at one point included an Indian-American governor, an African-American retired neurosurgeon and two Cuban-American senators?

    The one that boasts about having Latino mayors? Or the one that produces Latino governors?

    Wasserman Schultz’s ugly remarks toward Haley remind us that some white liberals expect people of color to take their marching orders from them, and they do not react graciously when minorities go rogue and insist on thinking for themselves.

    Let’s give that a name. It’s bigotry. And there is nothing soft about it.

  14. That’s not all Trump’s fault, either. It represents a decades-long trend that has seen the mainstream media continually in the tank for Democrats and relentlessly demonizing and misrepresenting Republicans.

    FTFY.

    1. You must not have heard Donald Trump speak ever.

      1. I don’t go out of my way to hear what he has to say, entertaining a troll as he can be, but to the extent it is reported, I haven’t heard much where he insults blacks, asians, or hispanics. “Illegal immigrant” is not a race, neither is Muslim.

        Is he a bigot? Sure. But so are most people. If we were an African superpower and white countries were poor, violent, and filled with enough white supremacists that Jim Crow was the law of the land in most places, and white billionaires were funding hate churches to move things that way in others, and the KKK was seeking out white people (even in lands where they were a dependent minority) for a global rampage of church bombings and lynchings, then we would be stupid to let white people in without vetting the shit out of them not only for connections/sympathies to actual terrorists but also even for legal democratic support of expanding their white supremacist system of laws. And unlike being Muslim, being white is not a choice.

      2. You mean, like this?

        Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets.

        The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.

        We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them.

        Etc.

        http://www.politico.com/story/…..-on-227095

        Its mostly a pro-cop speech, true. But what is racist about the way he addresses black communities, exactly?

        1. I appreciate how you linked to politico so Tony can’t come back with his fallacious bullshit about the source.

    2. Well there’s nick too.

    3. “It’s not our fault, it’s someone else’s fault!”

      The MSM most certainly does that, and while it’s all open to interpretation, it seems just as likely that the MSM bias is causing the death of the MSM. Not the GOP. The GOP might, possibly, have a hand in their own unpopularity.

      1. Little of column a, little column b.

        1. As in so many things, this is probably accurate.

  15. The strange thing about the myth of the Southern Strategy, which Gillespie eludes to here is that while Truman desegregated the federal government (after Wilson segregated it, mind you), Eisenhower was the first president since the Civil War to push through two Civil Rights Acts. Nixon desegregated public schools (while Kennedy and Johnson primarily let the issue fester), Johnson’s Civil.Rights Acts would not have passed without near unanimous Republican support, and Goldwater help found an NAACP chapter in Arizona. If Republicans were pursuing a strategy to appeal to racists they did a pretty shitty job of it.

    I get that Gillespie gets all his understanding about the world from Slate and Salon, but maybe he could employ some critical thinking and wonder- ‘maybe minorities don’t vote Republican because they disagree with less government’ or, ‘maybe because if they show any inclination toward conservativism they’re called racial epitaphs by so-called respectable rich white liberals (read any article written about Clarence Thomas by the New York Times or Washington Post)’.

    Or better yet, maybe Democrat obsession with identity politics sells better than principle?

    We get it. You’re With Her. But, just pretend like you’re not some Leftist writer for the NYT

    1. Hear, hear!

      1. Now, now. Nick is just letting us know What Is Known.

    2. Robert Tracinski at The Federalist nailed Gillespie dead to rights.

  16. instead of catering to ethnic groups republicans should be calling for all conservatives but they would also have to stop their mindless religious and drug and anti-gay attitudes so yes the GOP will get forever smaller.

  17. “his recent speeches identifying with the plight of African Americans living in urban areas that have been under Democratic control for decades”

    Trump’s speeches don’t “identify with the plight of African Americans”. They repeat the racist clich?s that white Americans have of life in the ghetto (where all blacks live, of course) as a living hell. As Reason itself has frequently pointed out, crime in inner cities is not “unbelievable”, as Trump likes to say. It’s high, of course, but much lower than it has been in the past. Not all inner-city schools are terrible, and not all black people are on welfare. But Trump’s (supposed) pitch is “your lives are so f*cked up, you should take a chance on voting for me.”

    1. They repeat the racist clich?s that white Americans have of life in the ghetto (where all blacks live, of course) as a living hell.

      Bullshit. Look at the excerpts above, or read the linked speech. Tell me what racist cliches he peddles.

    2. Are you serious? The entire Dem pitch to minorities is ‘look how horrible your lives are, you need us make those white people fix it for you.’ Is that not pretty damned racist as well?

    3. Not all inner-city schools are terrible

      Most of them are.

  18. I think there’s another factor in the decline of black votes for Republicans: advancing past the old battle lines. Think about what issues were being contested in the 1950s along race lines, and think about what issues are now. It’s the same as with gay rights, which used to be the right not to be literally bashed, and now is…. Libertarians could be on the organized-minority-interest side in the past, but not now. So blame Republicans for the same problem?

  19. Interesting that Nick didn’t mention the single biggest reason the Republicans are so unpopular with blacks and Latinos: the Democrats have very successfully labeled Republicans as racists for a few decades now and are still trying their level best to perpetuate the stigma.
    It’s gotten so over-the-top obvious that playing the race card is a tactic designed to demonize Republicans and conservatives that Democrats can openly joke about their using the card repeatedly.
    Why should the Republicans even try to court black votes? They don’t have much social power (very little influence in pop culture, the news media, and now high tech), so they can’t realistically combat the false demonization. Better to let the blacks who bought into the race card lie in the bed the Democrats made for them. Maybe they’ll catch on that they’re getting a raw deal, but probably not. The “all Republicans are racist” propaganda is too easy to believe.

    1. Speaking of media-perpetuated stigma–libertarians are always painted as heartless wackos. We won’t be able to win major elections or get into the top two parties until we beat this caricature of a mischaracterization.

      Another commenter pointed out that a black woman reacted to libertarianism by demanding forced association–her belief (incorrect of course) is that libertarians are “racist” (insomuch that we don’t carve out a specially-protected class for blacks). We libertarians are never going to win her over. And why should we? What she wants and how she thinks are not libertarian. Even if she were to change her voter registration to Libertarian, she would not act or vote like one.

      In the end, it’s going to be Reality that will teach people to be libertarian. Seeing a massive economic collapse and realizing that it was due to Republican and Democrat policies will win us more true libertarian converts than any outreach program.

      1. “Seeing a massive economic collapse and realizing that it was due to Republican and Democrat policies will win us more true libertarian converts than any outreach program.”

        Nah, they’ll blame the free-market and those heartless “neo-liberal” economic policies, and demand more of the inflation, regulation, intervention, taxation, protection and subsidy that caused the problems originally. They’ll double down on stupid.

  20. As a black man I say the Democrats have done more to harm to the Black community than the the GOP. I do not see a big gain or lose of the Black Vote for the GOP if one factors out Donald Trump.

    Immigration is a mixed bag . The dirty secret is some Black activist ( even on the left) are bad as the White Populist nativist in the GOP. The feel the Latinos are competing for entitlement and resources.

    For me I find myself between a hard GOP rock and a liberal Democrat hard place. My only response is to leave the GOP and registered as a new Libertarian Party member.

    1. I would think there would be a lot of that coming from the activist sect in the black community.

  21. the gop is like the guy who’s shocked that his girlfriend dumped him even though he never called, remembered her birthday, or cared what she thought. now, maybe if he had done all that she would’ve dumped him anyway, but you’ll never get laid again period if you don’t make a little bit of effort.

    1. Except that the “girlfriend” is convinced that her GOP boyfriend is a racist creep, and nothing he could do would ever curry her favor…
      The GOP shouldn’t try to court blacks because blacks by and large are thoroughly convinced the GOP is racist. Why waste the party’s limited social, political, and financial capital courting voters who are adamantly opposed to them?

      1. if you don’t try and convince them to some extent, you’re going to lose a lot of winnable elections. and part of why they’re convinced they’re racist creeps is because they make themselves such an easy target by saying a lot of awful things and letting the other side’s narrative go unchallenged. you don’t need win them all over or even achieve a 50-50 split.

  22. ya know what, I don’t care if someone is too lazy to work or stealing jobs. If they broke the law to get here, or are breaking the law to stay here, either review the law or get them the f**k out!
    Do you let anyone in your own back yard without knowing who they are, what they are doing there, when they intend to leave, etc?

  23. Well, the upside is the Republican Party is defunct, and it is folding manifestly into the Democratic Party, where the blacks are. Then, with two wings to the Democratic Party, the nascent conservative elements that exist in the black community (anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-drug) will have larger voice. All the Republicans have to do cave in once and for all on the “liberal” aspects of the black community (reparations, clear cut quotas, a huge increase in the “crony” pie). The Republicans have been sliding that way for decades, this will just be the last alley-oop across the finish line.

    Where people with principles end up is moot.

  24. 30%? More like 80% of the electorate can be written off.
    Beer and circus for the masses!

  25. If you wana make a reasonable income through laptop and if you have a reliable internet connection then you should be able to know how you make your income by laptop.this is very simple to know just vist my website and sign up there for more details.

    follow this for your future……….. http://www.Review80.Com

  26. “According to some polls, Donald Trump has been pulling as little as 0 percent of the black vote in key battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

    What is wrong with THOSE PEOPLE? “Failing schools”?

  27. Blacks went dem when Fdr offered big gov. I look forward to the “sky is the limit” libertarian party black voter outreach. What will libertarian big gov look and feel like? What will libertarian welfare look like. If it offers less then all the libertarian party can offer blacks is more wage competition from newly arriving Hispanics. Or nick can get off the pipe. Black libertarians. Ha ha. They are rarer than black republicans and unicorns.

  28. There is only one way to excel in politics these days – become a master chef. Then prepare the free lunch to perfection.

  29. It seems to have been mentioned but I want to make it nice and sparkling clear: The Libertarian Party is and has always been even less popular with blacks and Hispanics and Women than the Republican Party has been. I say this as someone who has voted Libertarian much more often than I have voted Republican.

  30. “…an August 11 Fox News Latino poll, only 20 percent of Latinos support him, lower even than Mitt Romney’s dismal 27 percent showing among Latinos in 2012…”

    The election is over two months away. Comparing a recent poll to an actual election outcome of four years ago does not represent a valid analysis.

    1. Well, a search on-line for “August 2012 polls romney latino” suggests that Romney was polling between 22% to 30% with Latinos in August 2012, so there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Trump is doing better with Latinos at approximately the same point in the race as Romney was, which is probably predictive that Trump will not do better with Latinos at the ballot box in the end unless you have some evidence that Trump is suddenly going to start improving his position with Latino voters in the next 10 weeks or so.

  31. If trump gets more than 5% of the black vote, will you stop writing for publication forever out of acute embarrassment.

  32. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ………….. http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  33. If a party wishes to attract black voters from a party promising politically enforced, tax funded black favoritism, one has to condemn black favoritism and its white discrimination as unjustifiable. If the best the opposition can do, is agree when Democrats insist that white people harmlessly working for a living are oppressing, have oppressed, or will oppress blacks at the first opportunity, and must be handicapped by affirmative action/diversity prejudice then they attract a default white vote.

    That same default white vote which the quasi-Libertarian Party will soon be sharing, with their own media shill’s claim, that a Democrat capture of a majority of black/Hispanic votes with minority favoritism represents votes for non-discriminatory equality, but “white supremacy” is the only reason for a default party collection of votes from white people who don’t see why working for living results is minority oppression.

  34. Both parties nodded sagely when the NY Times in 1914 warned of “cocaine negroes” straight out of DW Griffith movies. The GOP still had the advantage for crushing the tariff revolt freeing the slaves, until well after the klanbake when the klan cost Dems the 1928 election. As in the 1924 article “The Ku-kluxer” showing heavy klan defection to GOP ranks, the klan, ever a bastion of prohibitionism, avidly supported Herb Hoover. But today, God’s Own Prohibitionists have alienated by bullying all females except doting grandmothers AND miss no opportunity to fill jails with blacks who dare to get high on safer things than alcohol–and also confiscate their homes? How do those two segments add up to only 30%?

    1. Democrat United States Senator Robert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter.

      Despite being the only Senator to vote against both African American U.S. Supreme Court nominees (liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas) and filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Byrd later said joining the Klan was his “greatest mistake.” However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase “white niggers” on a national television broadcast

  35. Progressitarians strike again!

    Official Narrative: Repubs are losing because they’re mean old racists. Racists! Racists! Racists!

    Reality: The purpose of the 60s immigration reform was to import big government voters. We took more immigrants from less free countries, and fewer immigrants from more free countries. When you import people, you import their political culture with them. Duh.

    Even importing from relatively free countries likely sways the country toward big government. How many countries have anything comparable to the 1st and 2nd amendments? Arguing online, I’ve found that even Brits find the concept of a government of delegated and enumerated powers out of their ken. The government does what is good for us. You get to vote for them. What more do you want?

    Also, with the 60s cultural revolution, the racist Democratic party simply switched sides. Identity politics had been discredited for whites, so the Dems started selling it to blacks and other non-whites instead.

    Stopping the spigot of Big Government voters is the only hope the US has for freedom. Therefore, Trump is the only hope.

    It’s simply pitiful that “libertarian” Reason is the biggest cheerleader there is for a never ending torrent of Big Government voters to the US.

    1. Actual Facts on Hispanics it the US, immigrants and otherwise:

      PEW Research on Hispanic Americans

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
      Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

      http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
      Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

      This is the Big Game. Electoral power. All other issues are derivative.

      Repubs can barely beat Dems now. Four years of Hillary and amnesty and open borders and the Left will own an electoral majority for Big Government in Presidential elections. They already own the federal bureaucracy. They will own the Presidency and the Supreme Court too. The US will be a one party Progressive state.

      Game Over.

      The US will never have any chance of liberty again if Hillary wins. If Trump wins, the spigot of Big Government voters is turned off. That preserves a *chance*, that one day, liberty returns.

  36. After Civil War, they were called Radical Republicans because they supported education & employment for all former slaves. Andrew Johnson, Democrat Vice President,quickly gutted that idea.

  37. “Had the GOP focused more on ideology and less on skin color, the party could have thrived from the immigrant influx.”

    The GOP hasn’t focused much on skin color; focusing on skin color has been the strategy of Democrats, mostly trying to divide and conquer people based on skin color, race, and sexual orientation, and telling everybody that they are part of a mistreated minority and need the Democrats to help them. Well, everybody except for straight white males; for those, the strategy of Democrats has been to make them feel guilty enough to vote for Democrats.

    I have no idea how the GOP can get out of the hole it has dug for itself. Objectively, the best solution would be for a major political realignment that replaces the current GOP and Democratic zombies with two new parties, libertarians and socialists.

  38. Speaking of Nixon, yet very off topic: That enemies list of his seems like a coveted place. So coveted, successful directors imagine they were on it. Still can’t believe nobody called David Steinberg on this 14 years running.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.