Skip to comments.Importing disaster: demographic changes mean Democrat future
Posted on 04/29/2011 7:47:51 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
At a gathering some years ago, I had a political conversation with a man who had recently arrived here from Denmark. He was advocating his home country's socialist system, which, of course, led to profound disagreement. He was good natured and cordial, however, so the debate ended on a polite note. Yet it also ended on an ironic one: When asked if he wanted to return home, his answer was no.
This is a common phenomenon. We see it, for instance, in liberal northerners who move to the South for the lower taxes and cost of living and greater freedom but then continue to vote for the kind of politicians who made the Northeast a nice place to leave. And while this befuddles many, it's simply man's nature. Of course people want that which is good, such as a better lifestyle, but wanting and attaining are two different things. Everyone wants good health, for example, but many nevertheless are too attached to unhealthful foods and practices to relinquish them. Oh, they might move into your healthy body if they could, but they would likely do to it what a government subsidized project does to a good neighborhood.
Now, there is a reason why I'm talking about how a change in location doesn't equate to a change in ideology. In the Financial Times recently, Richard McGregor reported on the latest population data, writing:
The electorate has become less white and more Hispanic more rapidly than predicted, according to the national census, two trends that will influence elections for decades.
...Mr Obama and the Democrats have long had a significant lead among minority voters, [and these demographic changes are] lifting their chances of taking states such as Nevada, Georgia and Arizona [which were] lost in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Asians may have once voted Republican when their numbers were small and politically insignificant. But since Clinton they have been voting solidly Democrat. And it is no coincidence that they become more Democrat as their numbers grow, because as their numbers grow they will embrace identity and grievance politics like other minority groups.
In other words, their turn to the Left comes as no surprise whatsoever.
That the GOP did so well in 2010, and that it is demographically possible for them to continue to do well for a few more election cycles does not disprove that the long-term outlook is disastrous for the GOP.
The GOP did much better with whites in 2010 than did McCain and his pathetic campaign in 2008. That is why they did so well. A notable exception was the disastrous Sharon Angle. The media and other usual suspects tried to tie her loss to Hispanics, but the truth is that new Republican governor Sandoval did about the same with latinos as Angle, but he did much better with whites, and that is why he won and she lost.
A large white turnout and Republican who can win 60% of the white vote could easily beat Obama, but who knows if either of those will happen. And then further out, winning an overwhelming majority of the white vote will not be enough. But again, the GOP hasn’t done this since the 80s so permanent Democratic rule will probably arrive sooner rather than later.
Texas may hold on longer than you think. Some like to point out how the GOP does marginally better with latinos in Texas than they do in California, but it has been of no real significance in turning Texas so red.
GOP dominance in Texas is due to the GOP routinely winning over 70% of the evil white vote. That is what elected Bush, though one gets the feeling he likes to pretend it was Hispanics. It is THE reason. If whites in California voted the same way then the GOP would still be competitive there, though they wouldn’t dominate like they do in Texas.
So if the GOP can keep its lock on the white vote in Texas, the question becomes when does winning 70+% of the white vote and a small percentage of the non-white vote cease to guarantee victory? I think we’ve got a few more election cycles where the GOP should dominate Texas. Then it will probably enter a purple period as a competitive battleground state, something California never really did.
Then it will become blue, and we can count on the Wall Street Journal telling us all how its the fault of evil white conservatives who weren’t ‘welcoming’ to the latino influx, when of course the truth is that an influx of an inherently pro-Democrat population was always going to be good for Democrats in the long run.
Once mass immigration ends???
What makes you think it will end? Despite there being many in the House on record as supporting a cut back in legal immigration, there is absolutely no talk of pushing for it in the talk about immigration reform. In fact, most of the immigration reforms that are put forth by the leaders of both parties would result in increased legal immigration.
Do any of the potential Republican candidates for 2012 support ending mass immigration? Fred Thompson had the best immigration plan in 2008, but his late-starting campaign was doomed, and unfortunately we got no real contrast with Obama from McCain.
I don’t get what you are saying about Mexicans taking on the politics of the state they are in. Most Hispanics in Texas, a conservative red state, vote Democratic. Other than a few Florida races, and maybe Pataki once in NY, are there examples of Republicans carrying the Hispanic vote in any significant statewide race? Are Mexicans in Texas more conservative and Republican than those in California? Yes, they are, but again, a majority still favor the Democrats.
I do agree with you, and applaud you though for recognizing that, perhaps paradoxically, it would take ending mass immigration for immigrant communities to cease voting Democratic. Initially any successful campaign to cut immigration would result in a huge drop (in already low) Hispanic support for the GOP as a result of demogoguery. But if immigration were held low for decades, then eventually what you say might come to pass.
It should also be noted that the last mass wave of immigration came to an end, obviously. This is an inconvenient fact that proponents of mass immigration never address when making their absurd ‘we’ve been here before’ arguments. In fact, they have the nerve to say history proved the restrictionists wrong, when in fact the opposite is true. The restrictionists won last time, and we got over 40 years of low-moderate immigration. The last thing they were proven to be was wrong.
One thing has changed, and it should not be underestimated.
It has long been known that when a country reaches a particular economic plateau, a standard of living, unique to that country, suddenly its birth rate drops from 6 or 8 children per family, to just about 2.1 to 2.3, which is sustainability.
Up until a month ago, when several Arab countries went to sustainability, Mexico was the most recent country to do so. This means that the demographic pressure for Mexicans to come to the US is dropping rapidly, which is a multiplying factor with economic incentives of a better life, here.
Young parents, or young couples who wanted children, were one of the largest sub-groups of Mexicans who came to the US, wanting a better life for their children. But fewer children means less incentive.
That this is caused by standard of living demographics is proven in an odd way. Mexicans in Mexico are now at their countries plateau, but Mexicans who came to the US now have the highest birthrate among Mexicans. Because they are still below the US economic plateau, if not the Mexican one.
I know many men who are pro-immigration because they want access to women raised in non-feminist cultures.
It’s not about race. It’s about CULTURE. However, the two are often linked.
Yes, the birthrate in Mexico has fallen, and many, many years from now that will lessen the numbers of Mexicans wishing to flee their failed state. But if the end of mass immigration into the US is to come from such factors, then we are in for decades more of mass immigration. That will pretty much guarantee demographic oblivion for the GOP, or at least for any conservative agenda.
And if pressure from Mexico does lessen, then what about the rest of the world? Illegal immigration from Mexico is largely a result of geography, but legal immigration is a different matter. There are still Asian and African nations with debilitatingly high birth rates. I’m sure Obama and the Democrats would love see immigration continue to increase from those areas.
In short, unless we pass new, restrictive legislation that cuts legal immigration, then we will have mass immigration for decades longer, at least. If we have to wait for the influx to end on its own, the we are in for a very long wait, and we will have a permanent Democratic majority.
And until the influx is cut off, then comparisons to the past wave are not apt. All of the Germans, Italians, Irish, etc, and their chidren and grandchildren were assimilated during the Great Depression, WW2, and a nearly 50 year long period of low-moderate immigration. It’s hard to imagine any similar unifying experiences today (and of course we wouldn’t want another Depression or World War), and the mass influx continues unabated even with a weak economy.
Are there articles I could read regarding this? Could you recommend some?
There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico.
Some Arab countries, notably Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Lebanon, are either below or very close to that stability level of 2.1. Algeria and Morocco, at 2.4, are dropping fast toward it. Some other Islamic countries are also in this zone of population stability or decline, including Turkey (2.1), and Indonesia (2.2). Iran is listed at 2.0, below replacement level, but even more recent data suggests that Iran’s real rate is around 1.7, according to the latest CIA Fact book. Some scholars put it even lower.
The figures for adolescent fertility in the Middle East are even more striking. The world’s highest birthrate among adolescents is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with 222 births per year among teenage girls. In Britain, it is 24, which is higher than the number of such births in Algeria (7), Morocco (19), Oman (10), Kuwait (13), Qatar (17) the UAE and Tunisia (7). While Jordan (25) and Saudi Arabia are close to the British level.
Demographers in France have already refuted some of the wilder predictions of high birth rates among Muslim immigrants leading to “the cathedral of Notre Dame becoming a mosque by the end of this century.” The birthrate of mothers of North African origin drops to the local norm within two generations. Now it seems that the birthrate of Muslim and Arab women who did not emigrate is plummeting in a similar fashion....
Her profile is not unusual in Iran, where women give birth to fewer than 2 children, on average. This is one of the most remarkable demographic shifts in world history. Its fertility rate has declined from 7 children per woman in 1980 to 1.9 today a decline of 70 percent in the space of a single generation.
Between 1990 and 2005, for example, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9, and for Turkish-born women from 3.2 to 1.9. In 1970, Turkish-born women in Germany had on average two children more than German-born women. By 1996, the difference had fallen to one child, and it has now dropped to half that number.