Numbers Not Fit To Print: What I Said That Upset The New York Times


I felt a pang when I saw in

Marcus Epstein
`s recent

article
that I
may
not be quite as `respectable`”
as Bay Buchanan and
Jim Pinkerton, my co-panelists at last week`s American
Cause press conference—particularly as I have been
laboring continuously in the all-too-respectable if
BORING field of

financial journalism
for the best part of forty
years.


But I didn`t edit it out. As Chairman Mao

said
, let a hundred flowers bloom!

Diversity is Strength
!


And it is true that at
VDARE.COM
we are prepared to publish arguments that go a
lot further than many other immigration patriots.


The New York Times,
in its

blog item
clumsily attempting to defend its

February 1 editorial attacking us
, to which it
admitted reaction had been
“furious”,
harrumphed that


The
harsh Republican line on immigration is usually depicted
as motivated by concern about
jobs,
national security,

drugs
or
terrorism.
But that tune has a persistent undercurrent of
fretfulness about race, culture and ethnicity.”


This was not the least of the
NYT`s errors.
At VDARE.COM, we are indeed interested in jobs, national
security, drugs etc. etc.—that is, we continue to make
the broad
case
against immigration that FAIR`s Ira
Mehlman noted in his

review
of my book

Alien
Nation
back in 1994. But race, culture and
ethnicity are no mere
“undercurrent”
here: they are an overcurrent, if not a tsunami.


And why not? Does anyone seriously argue (except inside
the Beltway) that they`re not important?


You could read the
NYT
`s pieces without any idea of what we actually
said at the American Cause conference. This is the News
that was not
Fit
To Print
, to adapt the famous
NYT motto:
Marcus talked about his

analysis
of the 2008 House races, concluding that
immigration was mostly either a non-issue or
(incredibly) stolen from the GOP candidates by
Lou
Dobbs Democrats
. Jim Pinkerton talked about
immigration and border security. I talked about…numbers.


Of course, I realize that in itself won`t save me from
the charge of hate speech.
Joe
Guzzardi
recently

noted
the phenomenon of
“hate facts”—
things that are true but too politically incorrect to
mention. No doubt there are
“hate numbers”
too.


But the numbers are compelling.
We at VDARE.COM think that immigration is steadily
weakening the GOP (and

America
).
In the long term, only an

immigration
cut-off
will save it. But we also think that,
in the short and medium term, the GOP could easily
recoup its position by making a more effective appeal to
its base: white Americans.

Patriotic
immigration reform
is the most effective way
to do this.


Incidentally, as it happens, it`s also a surprisingly
effective way of appealing to minorities too.
Immigration is

not popular

with them either, probably because they`re on the front
line. For example, in 2004 the anti-illegal alien

Proposition
200
in w:st="on">Arizona

got 47% of the Hispanic vote
and ran well ahead of George W.
Bush.


In 1997,



Ed Rubenstein

and I wrote a National Review cover story,


Electing A New People
,
basically making three points:


1]



a static point:

in American politics, race is destiny—the races vote
systematically differently and these differences are
very slow to change;


2]



a dynamic point:

the major parties` share of the overall vote sways back
and forth according to political conditions, and the
proportion they get of each race`s vote sways back and
forth in parallel (but the differences between the races
remain roughly the same);


3]



an immigration point:

immigration policy is shifting
America
`s racial
balance toward minorities, and therefore the ability of
the Republican Party to win national elections is being
steadily reduced.


We



updated

the article in 2000 for the Hudson Institute`s
American Outlook
magazine.


Subsequently,



Steve Sailer

has been making a corollary point on VDARE.COM: the most
practical electoral strategy for the GOP is not
outreach, but inreach—to access more fully its white
base—what we call the
Sailer
Strategy
.


In 2004, despite all the hypocritical pandering
rhetoric, this is in effect

how Bush/ Rove won
, relying on the patriotic appeal
of the Iraq War. In 2008, with the war still dragging on
and the economy collapsing, it wasn`t enough. But
McCain`s selection of

Sarah Palin
as his running mate did get him briefly
ahead in the polls precisely because it motivated the
GOP base.


In 2008,
according
to CNN`s exit polls,
whites cast 74% of the
presidential ballots, blacks 13%, Latinos 9%, others 5%.


Right here, you can see why these numbers aren`t Fit To
Print. Whites are still by far the largest block of
voters—even in a year when their turnout was

widely reported
to be down. Relatively
small shifts in the white vote
swamp relatively
large shifts in the minority vote (assuming these occur,
which they

do not
) in absolute terms. Immigration is changing
this, but quite slowly.


In other words, the

conventional wisdom
that the GOP can only survive if
it gets more minority votes is innumerate—it is made by
people who can`t (or won`t) count.


Although you wouldn`t know it from the MSM, McCain
easily won the white vote—what would until the 1960s
would have been called the “American”
vote—55%-43%. This is actually quite a significant
achievement, considering



the disaster of the Bush
Presidency
.


I asked Ed to take this year`s result, the share of the
different racial groups that McCain got in 2008, and
project it backwards, calculating what McCain`s share of
the overall popular vote would have been if adjusted for
the racial balance that in fact existed in the U.S. at
the time of each Presidential election.


The result: McCain would have won a majority of the
overall popular vote

as recently as 1976.


I remember 1976.



Jimmy Carter

beat

Jerry Ford
. This analysis suggests that McCain ran
slightly better than

Ford
(although of course much worse than Reagan in
1984—he got 64% of the white vote). But McCain still
didn`t win the Presidency in 2008, because public policy
(which he stupidly


supported
)
had shifted the racial balance against him.


To give an idea of what could be done: in

Alabama
, whites cast only 65% of the presidential
votes—but went for McCain 88%-10%. He carried the state
in a

landslide
.


(The 2008 exit polls have lots of other interesting
details. For example, white Protestants, still 42% of
the electorate, voted 65%-34% for McCain. White
Catholics, 19% of the electorate, voted 52%-47% for
McCain. Jews, 2% of the electorate, voted 16%-83% for
Obama. Non-whites voted 18%-79% for Obama. These
divisions are so deep and systemic that you have to
wonder whether the w:st="on">U.S. is still a nation, with a
common culture, or whether it has become a sort of
heterogeneous empire. You also have to wonder at a
situation where white Protestants, who after all
invented the
U.S.
, have so
completely lost control of the national government.)


Of course, you won`t read anything about this in the
new,



post-purge

National Review, where they are

wittering wonkishly
about the
middle
class
and even
(and to think they once opposed
Nelson Rockefeller
) the
center.


But while i
t
may not be “respectable”, the fact remains that what
the New York Times
calls “
race,
culture and ethnicity”
is the most powerful way to
analyze American politics. And the analysis suggests
that the Democrats are in a precarious position: they
are a coalition of minorities and must at all costs
prevent
America
`s majority from
uniting. Hence the
NYT`
s hysteria.


Moral for the GOP: Stop. Immigration. Now. Deport.
Illegals. Now.



Reform the Citizen Child Clause
.
Now.


Or when you next have the chance


At VDARE.COM, we don`t support any political party and
certainly have no reason to like the Bush-McCain-Steele
Republican Party. Moreover, I`ve been making this
argument for more than a decade, to absolutely no
effect.


But the

symbol of the GOP is the elephant.
Those who have
ears to hear, let them hear.


Peter Brimelow
(email him) is editor of


VDARE.COM
and author of the much-denounced
 Alien Nation: Common Sense About America`s Immigration Disaster,

(Random House –
1995) and


The Worm in the Apple
(HarperCollins – 2003)