Sandersharptonharlem
Sanders' SWPL Surge: Diversity Isn't Strength For Democrats Either
Thumb peterbrimelow
February 10, 2016, 03:32 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
VDARE.com is a forum site: we publish anyone critical of America's immigration disaster, and  that includes Democrats. But I don't waste much time thinking about the Democratic Party because it's obviously useless to immigration patriots, its abandonment of the American working class confirmed by Jim Webb's tragic flinching from the issue in the Democratic candidates debate last October.

Still, the much-touted Sanders surge in New Hampshire, paralleling the Trump triumph, is worth noting because it shows that Diversity Is Not Strength for Democrats either.

Race is destiny in American politics. Sanders' supporters are notoriously white liberal loonies. And, as Clinton Campaign Manager Robbie Mook argued in his crassly-tribal spin memo released after the New Hampshire result:

...whereas the electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire are largely rural/suburban and predominantly white, the March states better reflect the true diversity of the Democratic Party and the nation...It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters. We believe that’s how it should be

Hillary Clinton’s no-need-to-panic-everything-is-going-to-be-just-fine campaign memo,explained, by Chris Cillizza, February 10, 2016. Emphasis added.

All of which takes me back to the Immigration Wars of the 1990s. Ed Rubenstein and I published a cover story in the pre-purge National Review arguing that, by shifting the racial balance through immigration, public policy was in effect shifting the political balance, toward the Left and the Democrats.

At the time this was a radical idea. Republican immigration enthusiasts were loudly maintaining, as usual in the face of all evidence, that Hispanics in particular were "natural Republicans." So we took a moment to give the then-most recent iteration of this idea a boot:

There is much bluster, notably by the incorrigible Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, to the effect that the GOP can win more Hispanic votes. But at the very best this will be an uphill struggle. Hispanics do indeed move rightward the longer they remain in America. But this effect is canceled out by newly-arrived immigrants who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Hence, directly because of immigration the GOP has never approached a majority of the Hispanic vote. And this shows no sign of changing any time soon.

The latest alleged portent: the laudable victory of Rev. Bill Redmond in the recent New Mexico special election for the House seat vacated by UN Ambassador Bill Richardson. A more careful reading of this result, however, leads (not for the first time) to the conclusion that immigration enthusiasts can't count. The Republican vote, 42 per cent, was barely above its previous peak and well short of a majority. What happened was that the Democratic vote was split, by a former Democrat running as the candidate of New Mexico's enviro-Stalinist Green Party, who got 17 per cent of the vote. This, and not a mass conversion of Hispanics, won the seat. Rep. Redmond will do well to hold it in 1998.

Electing a New People, June 16, 1997

Needless to say, the Wall Street Journal Edit Page was wrong. Redmond did not hold the seat and it has been Democratic ever since.

According Wikipedia, NM-3 is 60% white, 36% Hispanic, 20% "Native American." But obviously there's overlap: some Hispanics consider themselves white, and the actual Anglo population must be well below 50%. And some significant portion of the Anglos are SWPLs, centered in Santa Fe. Basically, the Mexicans and Indians vote as a bloc, the Anglos are split. Hence the district is Democratic.

What apparently happened in 1998 was that the SWPLs got fed up with the Hispanic-controlled Democratic machine, which of course is fundamentally interested in spoils a.k.a. racial socialism rather than Left-loonyism such as what Steve Sailer calls "World War T." So they stomped off, temporarily.

The Obama Administration has been tightly focused on pro-minority (specifically black) racial socialism, prioritizing Obamacare, forcing corporate America to hire (black) possible criminals, and puzzling clueless white Leftists in redistricting disputes by preferring a small number of safe black Democratic districts to a larger number of potentially Democratic districts that would not, however, necessarily be black safe seats.

Hillary Clinton looked like a safe choice to the Democratic Establishment because she has reassured minority leaders that their various deals will continue. But, as in NM-3 in 1998, the SWPLs are restless—and stomping off with Sanders.

If this analysis is correct, Sanders will indeed fizzle out exactly as Clinton consigliere Mook predicts. But that will leave Clinton pandering to a minority-dominated party just when American whites appear to be waking up.

Indeed, in the long run, the Democrats' diversity dilemma gets even worse: as Steve Sailer has also pointed out, it will be hard to hold Hispanics and Asians in a black-dominated alliance.

Couldn't happen to a nicer party.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.