09/08/2011
Peter Brimelow writes: The National Policy Institute is holding a conference on the theme Towards A New Nationalism: Immigration and the Future of Western Nations in Washington D.C. on September 10. A press conference will be held at the National Press Club, Friday, September 9. Everyone involved in these historic events, especially the presiding genius, Alternative Right’s Richard Spencer, deserves the thanks of a grateful nation, and I very much regret that for personal reasons I can’t be there. We post here Richard’s paper, prepared for the conference, on what he calls “The Majority Strategy”, which we at VDARE.com call “The Sailer Strategy” because it was invented by our Steve (America’s Half-Blood Prince) Sailer, even if, in his prima donna-ish way, he has been declining to focus on it recently. Some years ago, I was told (by a former staffer for Senator Jesse Helms!) that suggesting a white-cenric strategy for the GOP i.e. that it should appeal to its own base would lead to instant ostracism inside the Beltway. NPI is breaking that incredible taboo right now.
The National Policy Institute Research & Analysis
September 9, 2011
[PDF version at NPIAmerica.org]
Major Findings
The Majority Strategy
Introduction
With each new election cycle, the Republican leadership becomes ever more convinced of its need to “reach out” to Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities, or else risk irrelevance and defeat.
The votes of America’s historic Majority — namely, European Christians — are either taken for granted or treated as of lesser value.
The reality is that in multicultural America, Hispanics and Blacks are exceedingly unlikely to vote Republican, not to mention embrace “conservative values.”
Pursuing his “Southern Strategy” in 1968 and ’72, Richard Nixon won some 35 and 20 percent of the Black vote; John McCain’s groveling garnered him a measly five.
In place of outreach to the unreachable, Republicans would be wise to broaden their existing White base. Complimentary to this would be a dedication to immigration policies that stem the influx of Democrat-voting Third World migrants.
The “Majority Strategy,” developed first by Samuel Francis and more recently by Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer at VDARE.com, is the only realistic path to victory for Republicans. It would also ensure that future Americans inherit a country that resembles that of their ancestors.
Winning the Majority
The GOP is effectively The White People’s Party, whether the Republican leadership likes it or not.
Examining recent exit-polling data, in which some 60 percent of White voters supported Republican candidates — and approximately 90 percent of total Republican votes cast were by Whites — National Journal’s Ron Brownstein concluded:
"By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60 percent of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37 percent supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans’ 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote."[White Flight National Journal, January 7, 2011]
Moreover, only White voters gave majority support to the GOP’s core positions, for example, that government should be limited in scope and programs such as Obamacare, repealed.
This European-American ingathering is mirrored by the voting patterns of non-Whites — an astonishing 80 percent of whom supported Barack Obama in 2008. In turn, major Democratic initiatives such as Obamacare find majority support only among Black and Hispanic blocs.
Historically, the trend is quite clear: the GOP must win a higher percentage of White voters than of the general (multi-racial) population, and often by a significant margin.
In 2008, John McCain won 55 percent of the White vote, mainly due to the economic downturn and unpopularity of the Bush administration. Decades earlier, when America had yet to be transformed by mass immigration, winning such a percentage of the Majority would have secured election for most any national candidate. Gerald Ford, for instance, would have been reelected in 1976 if he had won as many White votes as did McCain.
And as 2008 proved, winning a mere majority of White voters is not enough. Sweeping Republican victories (such as occurred in 1994 and 2010) are only possible with outstanding Euro-American participation.
The Hispanic Republican Myth
Despite the GOP’s indisputable identity, the notion that the party must convert Minorities, Hispanics in particular, to its cause remains a popular assumption. Indeed, it’s had a long shelf life. In 1988 — when Hispanics were under 10 percent of the population and immigration had yet to become a national issue — Congressman Jack Kemp declared in the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review,
"I believe that in 10 years, one quarter of the Republican Party will consist of conservative blacks, conservative Hispanics, conservative Asian-Americans — or the Republican Party will resign itself to permanent minority status."[Policy Review., No. 45 (1988) not online]
Kemp was proven quite wrong. The GOP has never come close to being a quarter Minority. And yet, a dozen years after Kemp’s pronouncement, the Republicans were able to control a majority of governorships as well both houses of Congress and the presidency; in 2012, few would dispute that the party has a chance to achieve similar dominance.
The GOP does not need Minorities to win, and there’s little evidence that these groups can be brought into the party any way, even with the most expert groveling.
In 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle raised eyebrows throughout her campaign by openly supporting Arizona’s tough SB 1070 immigration law and producing provocative ads featuring Hispanic gang members, border crossers, and White Arizona school children in crosshairs. Angle, who lost her race, secured only 30 percent of the Hispanic vote. Mainstream commentators concluded that Republicans must “change their tone” on the immigration issue (which was their assumption all along).
But did Angle’s boldness drive away Hispanics? or even affect Hispanic voting?
In neighboring California, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman did everything possible to seem “Latino-friendly.” She ran ads stating "No a la Proposición 187 y No a la Ley de Arizona" (“No on Proposition 187 and No on Arizona’s Law.”) Whitman’s pandering — on a ballot initiative from 15 years prior and a law passed in another state — garnered her … 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, a negligible advantage over Angle, the alleged “extremist.” (And Whitman was hardly the first Republican for whom Hispanic outreach proved fruitless.)
The reality is that Hispanics — despite their national and ethnic diversity — bear all the hallmarks of structural voting patterns. Throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, Republicans won less than 32 percent of the Hispanic vote. Nothing much has changed in the 21st century, despite countless immigration and “racism” controversies and billions of dollars wasted in outreach. (And by the way, both Whitman and Angle would have been victorious if they had won the same percentage of White voters as the GOP did nationally.)
In his landmark Alien Nation (1994), Peter Brimelow writes,
“the post-1965 [Immigration Act] immigrants are overwhelmingly visible minorities. And these are precisely the groups that the Republican party has had the most difficulty recruiting.”
[T]his failure is not necessarily a question of the Republicans’ making nice, or nicer. It may reflect the more divergent minorities’ different values — and their more radical feeling of alienation from white American society.
The numbers of indisputable: Current immigration policy is inexorably reinforcing Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
That strained sound you hear is the conservative establishment whistling as they pass by the rainbow."[P. 196 PDF]
Jackson’s actual Rainbow Coalition proved to be more smoke than fire; the Democrats’ Rainbow Party, on the other hand, is just getting started.
America’s racial — and subsequent political — transformation will take generations, which is why a united White population will still be able to determine national elections for years to come. (But surely, the GOP would want to end immigration policies that inexorably increase the voting base of its rival party (?). This would seem such an obvious, “no brainer” strategy that even The Stupid Party might adopt it!)
Whatever the case, the implication for 2012 are obvious, though, as Steve Sailer laments, “only semi-mentionable in polite society”:
"[T]he GOP needs to do two things — get white people to turn out; and get them to vote Republican."
Easier said than done, of course. However, there are issues that are widely (indeed, wildly) popular among traditional Americans, and which don’t divide the White vote according to “Left” and “Right.” Immigration restriction is one of them. Indeed, it could be a keystone issue for a party that could feasibly command a super-majority of Euro-American voters.
Consensus Issues, not Wedge Issues
Immigration restriction is often described as “controversial” and “divisive,” if not “poisonous,” by mainstream media.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Immigration restriction is, in fact, a consensus builder among America’s historic majority. (And it is far less divisive than most of the issues the GOP is currently focusing on.) Whites of various backgrounds — who differ on economic and social issues — come together in recognizing mass Third World immigration as a threat to their way of life.
According to a NBC/Telemundo poll, 70 percent of American Whites support Arizona’s aforementioned SB1050 — legislation which President Obama openly opposes and which is routinely demonized in the media as “racist.”
A poll of religious Americans, conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies, is equally striking. Overall, 67 percent of observant citizens think that immigration into the U.S. is too high; and just under 80 percent of born-again Protestants — the GOP’s indispensable bloc — think so.[Religious Leaders vs. Members: An Examination of Contrasting Views on Immigration, December 2009]
Despite politicians’ frequent paeans to “democracy,” with the mass immigration issue, the will of the people diverges most dramatically from the consensus of the political establishment.
For Republicans, this is a major opportunity.
Conclusion
Throughout history, August Comte’s famous maxim has proven true again and again — “demography is destiny.” And whether they are willing to formulate it as such, Republicans are engaged in a demographic struggle for their survival.
Brownstein lays out their challenge in no uncertain terms:
"[T]he key question for 2012 may be whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what’s likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities, who still break preponderantly for Democrats."[“The Next America.” National Journal, March 31, 2011]
In other words, if the GOP can’t expand its Majority voting base, then Obama could be reelected by Minorities.
The unsettling result would be a national leader supported by populations that don’t identify with America’s European heritage and Founding culture, and many of whom have only recently become citizens.
All of that sounds dire… But the Republicans are lucky in that the strategy that will grant them victory — likely the only strategy that will do so — is morally justified. Who could deny a nation the right to maintain its traditions, culture, and heritage?
By adopting The Majority Strategy, Republicans would not just be saving themselves, they would be saving their country.
Richard B. Spencer is Executive Director of The National Policy Institute.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.