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

that I
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

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

, let a hundred flowers bloom!

Diversity is Strength

And it is true that at
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
harrumphed that

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

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
against immigration that FAIR`s Ira
Mehlman noted in his

of my book

back in 1994. But race, culture and
ethnicity are no mere
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
`s pieces without any idea of what we actually
said at the American Cause conference. This is the News
that was not
To Print
, to adapt the famous
NYT motto:
Marcus talked about his

of the 2008 House races, concluding that
immigration was mostly either a non-issue or
(incredibly) stolen from the GOP candidates by
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.

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

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

In the long term, only an

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.

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

in Arizona

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

In 1997,

Ed Rubenstein

and I wrote a National Review cover story,

Electing A New People
basically making three points:


a static point:

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


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);


an immigration point:

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



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


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

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,
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

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


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

(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

had shifted the racial balance against him.

To give an idea of what could be done: in

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


(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 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
, have so
completely lost control of the national government.)

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


National Review, where they are

wittering wonkishly
about the
and even
(and to think they once opposed
Nelson Rockefeller
) the

But while i
may not be “respectable”, the fact remains that what
the New York Times
calls “
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
`s majority from
uniting. Hence the
s hysteria.

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

Reform the Citizen Child Clause

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

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

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)