November 9, 2012
Practical Controversialism 001 (the new PC!)
Yesterday, I began writing a monumental treatise titled "How We Start Winning Again;" but I decided it was ridiculous. The piece was already over 5,000 words, and I was just getting started. So I've chosen a different route: Every now and again, I'll toss onto the table a short, strategic thought, a "practical controversialism" (P.C.) for two reasons:
- To start Republicans winning again
- And because it's just the right thing for us anti-liberals to do.
So here's the first P.C. I cast before you ~
This year, Hispanics chose Obama by some staggering amount; I think it was 70-30, a frightening number. If this becomes as permanent as the perennial 90% black vote, we may as well disband the party and create a new coalition.
So let's not let it become established law.
I do not believe that Hispanics voted en masse for Obama because he offered them "free stuff." I believe they stampeded leftwards because they have come to believe, rightly or wrongly (a little of both), that Republicans just don't like them. Because of the paucity of frequent contact between Hispanics (and other minority voters) and the GOP, many voters believed the calumnies hurled against us by liberal Democrats; they were afraid what would happen to them if Mitt Romney or any other Republican was elected.
Republicans tend to buddy up to Hispanic voters in the last few weeks of every election. Hispanics notice this sad fact. By contrast, Democrats work with Hispanic leaders, Hispanic organizations, Hispanic news media, Hispanic cultural icons every day of every week, year in and year out. Who are they more likely to believe on election day?
So my controversial suggestion is this: We should do just as much outreach to Hispanics, at every level, as the Democrats do (or maybe even more, to make up for lost time). Not the same content; we shouldn't try to bribe Hispanics for their votes, as Democrats do with identity-politics legislation. But we should have so much contact, so much two-way communication, that Hispanics really and truly understand that we welcome them as people, respect their culture, and have a great commonality not shared with liberals: religiosity, strong and large families, entrepreneurship, and some very conservative social values.
You can peel off a lot of that anti-conservative vote simply by demonstrating -- all the time, not just when an election looms -- that we really want to hear what American Hispanics need in order to feel like full citizens, and by persuading them, one by one, how Capitalism and individual liberty compliments and supplements their own strong sense of community. (I mean Hispanic citizens and lawful residents, not illegal aliens.)
For that matter, why not do the same communications outreach -- not "payoff" outreach -- with black and Asian voters? There must be many black business owners who would be willing at least to talk to officials of the Republican Party, or attend a dinner jointly sponsored by the RP and organizations that promote business ownership among black entrepreneurs. Similarly, quite a few Koreans and Vietnamese are Catholic (the French connection). Anything we can do to dispell the idea that "Republicanism = racism" cannot help but convert some portion of Hispanic, black, and Asian voters from knee-jerk Democrats to thoughtful Republicans.
It's assuredly true that some Republicans are racists; but I'm certain that a great many more liberals are racists -- believing that "people of color" must stay on the "plantation." And an even larger number on the Left are blatant anti-Catholic bigots: I reference those liberals who try to hang homosexual activity between a few priests and mostly adult males, along with a very small number of actual child molesters, around the neck of the entire Catholic faith like a Progressivist albatross.
Yes, socially and economically conservative blacks, along with Catholic Hispanics and Asians, naturally have a great deal more in common with Republican conservatives than with atheist liberals who hate entrepreneurs and believe "minorities" belong, not in the free market, but in the inner-city slums instead. And of course in the ballot booth every couple of years, to "earn" their liberal welfare checks.
In any event, how could it hurt just to keep the lines of communication open year round? Both the GOP and Progressively victimized minority voters really have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 9, 2012, at the time of 1:19 AM
The following hissed in response by: White Fang
Dear Lord, how are we not already doing this?!
This is absolutely spot-on. I hope to God Republicans are smart enough to listen. Keep us posted on whether or not it starts happening. Do you think we Big Lizards readers could get together somehow on the point of pushing for this? Take initiative as opposed to stopping with giving advice?
The following hissed in response by: mdgiles
Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of whites, yet vote 95% for Obama.
Obama sends weapons to Mexico so drug gangs can kill hundreds of Hispanics, yet vote 70% for Obama.
How exactly do you reach these groups?
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
You can peel off a lot of that anti-conservative vote simply by demonstrating -- all the time, not just when an election looms -- that we really want to hear what American Hispanics need in order to feel like full citizens, and by persuading them, one by one, how Capitalism and individual liberty compliments [sic] and supplements their own strong sense of community. (I mean Hispanic citizens and lawful residents, not illegal aliens.)
To quote Adam Savage, “There’s yer problem.” I might divide Hispanics into three groups:
1. A great number of US citizen and legal resident Hispanics were once illegal immigrants themselves; others are descendents of illegals. (Many of these are beneficiaries of a t*rd of a law called Simpson Mazzoli -- otherwise known as Ted Kennedy’s “Amnesty and Y’all Come Act.”) As a group, they are, of course, generally sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants.
2. Hispanics with no personal connection to illegal immigration often still support legalization by means most folks reading here would call amnesty. Why? It’s part cultural affinity, part belief that some legalization opponents are motivated by prejudice, part sympathy for what the illegals are going through, and part understanding of why they came here in the first place. (I’m sure I missed some parts.) And some Hispanics are just plain liberals.
3. Other legal Hispanics definitely do not support amnesty. (My US citizen nee Mexican wife is among them.)
Group 3 may be a majority, but there are very large numbers in groups 1 and 2. And as long as we keep talking about “self deportation” and other measures they consider anti-immigrant, it will take a lot of selling to convince groups 1 and 2 that Republicans are really on their side.
(Note that I don’t have an answer to this conundrum. I’ve been calling for self deportation -- in concept if not in words -- around these parts for years. I agree with you and others that we need to be selling conservatism to Hispanics constantly, not just every other October. But it’s a very hard sell.)
The following hissed in response by: snochasr
I think I may have a solution that would satisfy both sides. I call it the "wink-wink" approach. It starts with two things: a commitment to complete the border fence within one year, and an immediate 18 month increase (by millions) in the number of immigrants permitted across the southern border IF they have a job waiting and know of a place where they might live. The second phase would start with a six-month period during which no new employees could be hired unless they were approved by the national E-Verify database as being legal citizens. Following that there would be a six-month period during which all employees whose Social Security numbers were on the "do not match list" would have to be processed through the E-Verify system, and would then have a six-month grace period to continue work. Any employer knowingly hiring an illegal alien would be heavily fined, as they are supposed to be today. Now, at no time during or after fence construction will there be any obstacles to someone LEAVING the country unless they are wanted for some crime (that we know about).
Now, here is where the "wink-wink" part comes in. We can't just grant amnesty to someone for illegally crossing the border without also granting them amnesty for the crimes of misrepresentation, conspiracy and forgery, identity theft, theft of government services, driving without a license, possible tax evasion and who knows what else that were incidental to their illegal presence here. But if somebody shows up at the "wide gate" in the fence and, by some mysterious clairvoyance, knows of a job waiting with a willing employer and an empty apartment nearby, then "wink-wink" come right on in, stranger. We can decide their future immigration status at a later time, but the person who committed all those crimes is gone and this new one is welcome if they keep their nose clean-- we know where they are. The only criminals who remain in the country are the true criminals – the drug runners and such – and we will deal with them as criminals.
The following hissed in response by: Karl
It occurs to me that even the illegal immigrants would be open to how capitalism would make their lives better. I don't think all of them are coming over to sign up for benefits, and those who aren't are hoping to make a life for themselves in a way they haven't been able to in their home countries.
If they liked the effects of the political structure back home, they'd still be there.
The above hissed in response by: Karl at November 10, 2012 8:32 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved