“The Irrepressible Conflict”: Obama vs. Arizona—And America

The
really good news about Obama`s assault on Arizona and
its SB1070 law is captured in both the headline and the
lead of this report by the

very Politically Correct Associated Press
:


As
Dems lay low, GOP hits Obama on Arizona lawsuit

 “WASHINGTON
– Republicans denounced the Obama administration`s
challenge of Arizona`s new immigration law Tuesday, a
fresh sign they may try to paint Democrats this fall as
soft on illegal border crossings.

[VDARE.COM
comment:
whaddya mean, "try"?]

“While Democrats stayed largely quiet, a host of Republicans said the


federal
government has no business challenging Arizona`s new law
.
Slated to be implemented July 29, it would require state
and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal
immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as


traffic stops
.

” `If the president wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do
so by taking


amnesty
off the table and
focus his efforts on border and interior security,` said
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky….

“They included
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. He said
the federal government should not sue Arizona but should
help it and other states `stop the crime and lawlessness
along the border.`

“Top Democratic
elected officials had little to say, leaving the defense
of Obama`s move to liberal allies such as the ACLU.”


[By Charles Babington, July 6. 2010] (links added)

The immigration issue,
which immigration enthusiasts have fought

desperately
to keep

bipartisan
(and thus out of the reach of

American voters
), is finally precipitating out on
party lines.

It`s not that Republican
elected officials want to take a strong stand on illegal
immigration,

legal immigration
or anything else for that matter.
McConnell and Boehner, quoted above, are the single most
important reason not one congressional Republican can be

found to introduce
a
“Time Out” or moratorium bill in the


teeth of record unemployment
—even though they have
no other ideas to reduce unemployment, and even though

Senator Harry Reid
(of all people)

introduced one
during the much less serious
recession of the

early 1990s.

Indeed, Senator John
McCain`s response to the


Obama attack on Arizona

goes some way to answering the interesting question of
where he will stand on immigration if he succeeds in
convincing Arizonans that


he really is a
born-again border enforcer

and staving off


J.D. Hayworth`s primary
challenge
.

McCain (and the hapless
junior GOP Senator, John Kyl) said in a statement:


“It is far too premature for the Obama Administration to
challenge the legality of this new law since it has not
yet been enforced.”

[
Republicans
Slam Obama for Suing Arizona
,
by Connie Hair, Human Events, 07/06/2010]

This, of course, implies that there
will be a time when a challenge is
not
premature—like, for example, after John McCain`s
re-election.

There is
only one reason Republicans are now making these brave
statements: they are being forced to do so by their
base. This is the only reason Arizona`s

RINO governor
Jan Brewer

signed SB1070
in
the first place—and she has been rewarded by soaring
polls and probably re-election in a race that had looked
very difficult indeed.

We know
from the experience of California governor

Pete Wilson`s
similar resurrection victory after he
endorsed Proposition 187 in 1994 that Republican
campaign consultants cannot be trusted to draw the
obvious lesson from Brewer`s bounce-back. But how

stupid
can they be?

Pretty stupid if they
believe AP`s reporter, who parrots the usual Democratic
disinformation:

“`There`s no
evidence that Republicans have been able to turn this
issue into a winning issue in a general election," said


Simon Rosenberg,
[Email
him
] who
follows immigration matters as head of the
liberal-leaning group


NDN
.
If top Republicans keep pounding the issue, he said, it
could increase Democratic turnout in Texas, Arizona,
Nevada, California and possibly other states.”

In fact,
of course, the Republicans have never run a general
election on patriotic immigration reform—McCain
and the catastrophic

George W. Bush
were
quite simply on the other side.

And the
factor totally missing from this type of conventional
analysis: what about the white a.k.a. American

turnout
?

At
VDARE.COM, we have repeatedly demonstrated that the GOP
(or some generic patriot party) can most easily win, and
can

continue to win for a long time
,
by mobilizing its white base. We call this the
Sailer
Strategy
.

Needless to say, the Establishment
Right is incapable of adopting, or even discussing, this
strategy. But, inexorably, it is adopting them. By a
remarkable coincidence, the
Washington Post carried an article that said as much just the day
before Obama`s attack on Arizona became official:

“Obama`s [poll] numbers among white voters have some Democratic strategists with an eye
on the fall elections decidedly nervous.

“One senior strategist, speaking candidly about his concerns on the
condition of anonymity, noted that white voters made up
79 percent of the 2006 midterm electorate, while they
made up 74 percent of the 2008 vote. If the white
percentage returns to its 2006 level, that means there
will be 3 million more white voters than if it stayed at
its 2008 levels. That scenario, said the source, `would
generate massive losses` for House and Senate Democrats
in November because of Obama`s standing with that
demographic.”




Democrats hope Obama 2008 model will help stem midterm
losses
,
by Chris Cillizza, July 5, 2010

In the
short term, Obama operatives apparently plan to respond
by

mobilizing their own base,
both because they can`t
stop
themselves emotionally
, and because they don`t seem
to realize
how
small this base is.

In the long run, they
simply plan to swamp the historic American nation with
continued non-traditional immigration:

" `There is probably some short term pain politically given how popular
the law is,; said the Democratic strategist, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity because the government
lawsuit had not been filed at the time. `But considering
the demographic changes the country is undergoing, long
term, there is a lot of upside in advocating for Latinos
and comprehensive immigration reform.` "




Obama faces political challenge on Arizona case
,
by Michael Shear,
Washington Post
, July 6, 2010

So
desensitized has American public discourse become that
this shameless statement of a determination to
elect a new
people
—a
nation-wide version of 
"The
Curley Effect"
,
 named for


Boston Mayor James M. Curley

who systematically drove his


Protestant opponents

out of the city (See Glaeser, Edward L. and Andrei
Shleifer.

The
Curley Effect: The Economics Of Shaping The Electorate
,
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 2005,
v21(1,Apr), 1-19)—can be made without fear of criticism.

That`s why we call them


“The Treason
Lobby”
.

America`s continued

post-1965 immigration disaster

has set in motion inexorable forces.

Reluctant Republicans being
forced, finally, to defend their constituents.

American whites becoming

ever
more alienated
.

An American state is forced
to defend itself against a federal government that will
not honor its constitutional obligation to defend the
states against invasion—which must ultimately raise the


secessionist question
:
what good is the American Union at all?

And a elemental political
question is being punted to the judiciary—which must
ultimately draw the


judiciary into politics

and waken the sleeping dragon of the constitutional
check/balance,

the
impeachment of judges
.

I`ve said

before
that all this is
beginning to remind me of the last years before the
outbreak of the Civil War.

What William
H. Seward called an
irrepressible conflict
is shaping
up—between the historic American nation and the radicals
who must overwhelm it if they are to maintain power.


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)