The Emerging Democratic Majority Gets Establishment Attention

Many of the arguments in John B. Judis and Ruy
Teixeira`s recent book

The Emerging Democratic Majority
will be familiar to students of the VDARE.COM School
of voting analyses. Indeed, the phrase “The Emerging
Democratic Majority” probably first appeared in print as
the cover line introducing Peter Brimelow and Ed
Rubenstein`s 1997 National Review

article

“Electing a New People.” (Curiously, Judis and Teixeira
don`t mention this, although Judis is a
biographer
of William F. Buckley.)

Like me, the authors enjoy exploding the complacency of

Karl Rove
and

Michael Barone
. They too see Rove`s plan to woo
minorities, especially Hispanics—volubly endorsed by
Barone—as doomed:

 

“Although President Bush has, on Rove`s advice, loudly
courted Hispanic voters, they don`t seem particularly
receptive. In 2000, for instance, Bush pursued
California`s Hispanics

extensively
while Gore neglected the state; but Bush
still received only 28 percent of the Golden State`s
Hispanic vote.

 

Bush did better in his home state of Texas, winning 43
percent of its Hispanic vote. But even there, the
broader political trend suggests Hispanics are

making the Democratic party their political home.
In
this year`s races for the Texas statehouse and state
legislature, Hispanics ran in just four Republican
primaries—and lost all of them. By contrast, Hispanic
candidates ran in 39 Democratic primary contests and won
35, including the gubernatorial primary…

 

All in all, Democrats can now count on about 75 percent
of the minority vote in national elections. And like
other Democratic-leaning groups, minorities are growing
rapidly.”

(For more detail, compare Judis` & Teixeira`s recent

summary
of
their book in The New Republic to my 2001 review
of

Barone`s
last book.)

There are many other similarities between their book and
my articles (here`s my

archive
). For example, Judis & Teixeira validate my

scoop
from over a year ago that Hispanics only cast
5.4% of the votes in 2000, not the 7% that is
universally cited.

So I naturally turned to their endnotes for confirmation
that they`d read my stuff. I found, however, that they
exclude all web-only publications from their notes,
except for databases.

This has been standard scholarly procedure, but it is
clearly obsolete. Endnotes should appear online with
live links to source sites. That would benefit readers
who don`t frequent research libraries.

Still, maybe Judis & Teixeira came up with this all on
their own. After all, as I`ve

pointed out
about my own articles, it doesn`t take a
genius to figure this stuff out—just MS Excel and a
willingness to face facts.

I`m sorry to say, though, that this plodding, humorless
book proved a disappointment compared to their
relatively lively TNR

essay
. If you told me that two human beings could
write a book almost solely concerned with candidates and
their purported platforms without resorting to any
discernible irony, sarcasm, or wit, I would have
scoffed. After all, we`re talking about politicians!

Sadly, however, The Emerging Democratic Majority
proves me wrong.

The only laughs you`ll get are from watching J&T suck up
to the various Democratic interest groups. For example,
they are shocked, shocked that some Republicans
have attributed the

AIDS epidemic in America
to

homosexuals
. Of course, they don`t bother to put
forward an alternate theory of causation. Perhaps twin
HIV-bearing meteorites crashed simultaneously on Castro
Street in San Francisco and Christopher Street in New
York?

J&T are brusquer toward minorities (maybe they don`t
think minorities buy books?). But they are extremely
solicitous of

white liberals,
who want to view themselves as

morally superior
to white Republicans (those
subhuman

racist
vermin). So J&T refuse to admit throughout
the book that blacks commit a

disproportionate
number of crimes—and that this was
crucial to Republican successes from 1966 onward.
Instead, they just accuse Republicans of opposing “civil
rights.”

Civil rights? My late father-in-law was a classical
musician, a union organizer and strike leader, and a
Democrat. He owned a house in an all-white neighborhood
on the West Side of Chicago that was so crime-free that
his first grade daughter walked to her school a mile
away. Then, blacks began moving in. Committed to
integration, my father-in-law joined a liberal Catholic
neighborhood group organized to prevent white flight. In
1968, however, his young children were physically
attacked three times on the street and, following Martin
Luther King`s assassination,

rioters
looted all the shops in the neighborhood.

So he sold his house for a crushing $18,000 loss. Being
a big man who never did anything in a small way, he
moved his family to an abandoned farm 63 miles outside
Chicago, where they lived without indoor plumbing for
their first two years.

And he started voting Republican.

Ironically, if J&T could have brought themselves to
admit the historic role of black crime, then they could
have strengthened their case that the Trend is
Now the Friend of the Democrats.

At vast cost over the last 40 years, scores of millions
of whites have succeeded in largely insulating
themselves from black criminals—as my in-laws did. They
put locks on their windows, moved to the suburbs,
installed surveillance cameras in their stores, hired
rent-a-cops, sent their kids to private schools, etc.
etc. And they voted for tough-on-crime candidates who
passed laws that insulated law-abiding people from crime
by putting enormous

numbers
of bad guys in jail.

This has driven the black-on-white (and black-on-black)
crime rate down. Which, paradoxically, poses a problem
for the GOP. Just as winning the Cold War in the past
isn`t going to help conservatives in the future, the
Republican partial victory in the Crime War hasn`t done
anything for voters lately.

J&T`s basic framework is that the Democrats will
dominate through three, possibly four, groups: 1)
minorities; 2) women; 3) professionals; 4) bluecollar
whites(…maybe).

1. Of course, J&T are right about minorities, although
they acknowledge that will eventually backfire:

 

“Democrats could suffer from an embarrassment of
political riches. As Democrats have gained majorities in
cities or states… turf battles have begun to break out
among the members of the Democratic coalition. They have
pitted

blacks against Hispanics
or both against whites.”

They go on to cite poor

Mark Green
, a liberal white Democrat who lost the
New York mayor`s race because he attacked his Puerto
Rican primary opponent`s main ally, the Rev. Al Sharpton,
for … well, for being Al Sharpton. More recently, in the
New York Democratic gubernatorial primary, Andrew Cuomo,
the son of the former Governor and a Clinton

cabinet secretary
, ran into the new law of
Democratic politics: You can`t criticize a minority
candidate. He was forced to drop out before the primary
election.

But J&T`s other favorite categories just don`t have the
analytical power of race/ethnicity.

2. The idea that the gender gap boosts the Democrats
gets publicized because of the media`s unspoken
assumption that women`s votes somehow count (or ought to
count) more than men`s votes. In reality, the gender gap
has proven largely a wash. In 2000, for example, 54% of
women voted for Gore, but 53% of men voted for Bush.

The truth is that the more feminized the Democrats
become, the more men will flee to the Republicans. Why?
Because—let`s face it, guys—us real men are prejudiced
against anything female-dominated. Look at Hollywood
movies: men simply won`t go to see “chick flicks” in any
numbers. Female buddy movies are extremely rare because
they don`t

make big money
. (“Thelma
and Louise”
was a famous exception that proves the
rule.)  If J&T are right in assuming that more women
will move into the Democratic Party—which in fact they
don`t present much evidence for—then more men are likely
to move into the Republican Party.

Furthermore, and remarkably, J&T also generally ignore
the huge voting

gap
between married and unmarried women. According
to Lena Edlund and Rohini Pande of Columbia University,
the emergence of the gender gap is due to the

decline of marriage.

Husbands hand money over to their wives. (I`ve
estimated that men give women something like a

trillion dollars
per year to spend.) Wives vote
Republican.

Unmarried women
tend to look to the

government for support.
They vote Democratic.

I suppose the rate of marriage will continue to decline.
But there are hints that these trends are starting to
bottom out. After all, the divorce rate hit its peak
over 20 years ago.

3. J&T show that in 1960, professionals were more likely
than managers to vote Republican, but by 2000 that had
reversed. But this doesn`t prove much because J&T are
triple-counting their three favorite groups. The
professions include many more minorities and women today
than in 1960. In particular, the big expansion in
government after 1960 created a huge number of at least
nominally professional jobs staffed by female
minorities, many in what John Gardner calls the “Educartel.”

4. J&T hope Democrats will do well among blue-collar
whites. But their arguments here seem confused. But it
is clear that, although Reagan carried unionized whites
twice, the GOP has since let these Reagan Democrats slip
away. This could be because the once-vital WSJ
Editorial Page
strategy of Do Nice Things For The
Rich seems to have struck diminishing returns. Lowering
the 70% marginal income tax rate in 1981 was a great
idea, but eliminating the inheritance tax on
billionaires in 2001 might strike the average autoworker
as a bit too generous.

Is there anything the Republicans can do? In reality,
most of the authors` four pillars of Democratic
dominance are shaky.

The gender gap will remain a wash.

Professionals might indeed be a growing sore spot for
Republicans, especially if the present coalition of
libertarians and lackeys of industry continues to
position the GOP as The Party That Hates Nature as
opposed to the Teddy Roosevelt

conservationist
tradition of enjoying vigorous fun
the in

Great American Outdoors.

Here`s an illustrative potential wedge issue:
California`s liberal Democratic senator Barbara Boxer
wants to ban

mountain bikers
from 2.5 million acres of that
state`s prime wilderness. The Democrats are on the side
of backpackers, a declining Baby Boomer contingent. That
opens the door for the Republicans to champion mountain
bikers, a growing group of fashionable younger voters.

Republicans can win more blue-collar whites by pandering
a little less to the economic interests of the rich.
Although cutting back on mass immigration would irritate
the wealthy by raising the

wages
they have to pay their

pool guys,
it would relieve a lot of the

wage pressure
on working class Americans.

But minorities are indeed a long-term problem for the GOP.
The ranks of black voters will continue to grow, but at
a declining rate due to rapidly falling fertility. So
immigrant groups are the most obvious long-term threat
to the survival of the GOP as a conservative party.
Everything depends on future immigration policy.

Of course, J&T simply treat mass immigration in the
conventional manner – as a vast natural force like
global warming, beyond any human influence.

Yet the

embarrassing failures
of the Bush-Fox and

Daschle-Gephardt
amnesty plans show the tide is
turning. More and more, Republicans are coming to
understand that immigration control is the key to saving
their party – and their nation.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]

October 06, 2002