Skip to comments.Who Killed the New Majority?
Posted on 03/27/2013 6:55:35 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
The Republican National Committee has produced an autopsy on what went wrong in 2012, when the party failed to win the White House and lost seats in Congress.
Yet, the crisis of the Grand Old Party goes back much further.
First, some history. The Frank Lloyd Wright of the New Majority was Richard Nixon, who picked up the pieces of the party after Goldwaters defeat had left Republicans with just a third of the House and Senate.
In 1966, Nixon led the GOP back to a stunning victory, picking up 47 House seats. In 1968, he united the Rockefeller and Reagan wings and held off an October surge by Hubert Humphrey, which cut a 13-point Nixon lead to less than a point in four weeks.
In 1972, Nixon swept 49 states. The New Majority was born. How did he do it?
Nixon sliced off from FDRs New Deal coalition Northern Catholics and ethnics Irish, Italians, Poles, East Europeans and Southern Christian conservatives. Where FDR and Woodrow Wilson had won all 11 Southern States six times, Nixon swept them all in 72. And where Nixon won only 22 percent of the Catholic vote against JFK, he won 55 percent against George McGovern in 1972.
What killed the New Majority?
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
The only remaining hope for America is a return to Christ.
As anyone who's taken a good look at things knows if we had a TRULY traditional nation, with the mothers at home tending the children, the men working, and the children properly organized inside the families, and grandparents looking on ready to babysit and fill in ~ then we'd have 85% UNEMPLOYED living at home the way God intended.
The shame is that we have 53% employed, not 15%, and that is destroying the American family leaving armies of illegitimate kids to wander the streets beating up old ladies and firing pistols at all times of the day and night into each other.
If there is no mention of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD then this ‘autopsy’ is useless.
what went wrong went wrong a long time before 2012—Terri Shiavo being killed and not rescued by the ruling Republican junta at the time stripped away all vestiges of Republican credibility. It became apparent that Republicans, like Demoncrats were just in it for the power
Grandparents willing to act as a help to the families, but in my family NONE of the grandparents helped, they acted like big babies vying for attention with the grandchildren or running around on their own trips, never thinking to take the grandkids along. I was completely disgusted with all of them
Income tax forced women to have to work rather than raise children. Social Security made it unnecessary to have children to create a family for one to spend their declining years. Public schools and media propaganda instilled insane notions of the roles of people in society as normal (single motherhood, gay marriage, etc.).
Governments can cause dramatic social change but societies are unable to adapt as quickly and so perish.
(e.g. every socialist/fascist/commie ever)
I refer to my children’s grandparents. I had fabulous grandparents that doted on all of us children.
George H.W. Bush. He managed to take the massive majorities that Reagan had built and all the political capital from the fall of the Soviet Union, which should have guaranteed Republican control for the next fifty years and threw it all away in only one term by caving to democrats on taxes and not defending Reaganomics. (Then his son George W. Bush chocked the last few breaths out of the New Majority with his compassionate IE - "big Spending" Conservatism...but that's another story.)
George H.W. Bush. He managed to take the massive majorities that Reagan had built and all the political capital from the fall of the Soviet Union, which should have guaranteed Republican control for the next fifty years and threw it all away in only one term by caving to democrats on taxes and not defending Reaganomics.
BRAVO! Someone should expand on this brilliant thesis. Oh, wait....
I both agree and disagree with that statement.
The part I agree on is that restoring the religious underpinnings of the American culture is profoundly important, but at the same time, while religious politicians can be a source of good, they can also be disastrous.
Going back to the start of America and the founding fathers, there was a rejection of the European model of the monarchic state “created by heaven”. This amounted to the tyranny that “I am king because God said so. So if you do not obey me, you are also disobeying God.”
The founding fathers, while recognizing and adoring God, wanted to be very clear that our constitution was written *by* men, and *for* men, so could be changed by men without offending God. (Lincoln reiterated this idea in the Gettysburg address.) Thus violations of the constitution are “unconstitutional”, not “heresy”.
At the “street level” in America, the people made a distinction in their politics that does not exist in the dictionary. The distinction is between “ethics” and “morality”.
They see ethics as meaning the adherence to the written law, be it zoning law, criminal law, or fairness in civil law. For better or worse, it is the written law, so if you obey it, you are “ethical.” It doesn’t really speak to whether the law itself is good or bad, just that you follow it.
Morality, however, is distinguished from ethics, in the common mind, by meaning that a person follows a religious and moral code, which may or may not overlap with the written secular law. But there is a problem with this, as religious and moral codes have considerable variation, depending on the faith, the sects of that faith, and even individual churches.
And this creates a political problem. If a political candidate says they are “ethical”, voters can clearly decide if they obey the written law or not. But if they say they are “moral”, there is no clear meaning. Moral, according to who?
Morality is subjective, which is used by immoral scoundrels to pretend that they are moral people. Both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi would insist that they are “moral people”, but even their own church says they are not. Yet they insist that their church has it wrong.
Yet voter would have to examine what they call morality in comparison with the voters morality. Most don’t know enough to do this well with most political candidates, unless they are extremely immoral.
While this seems to suggest that truly moral, religious people cannot bring their faith with them into politics, this is incorrect. But they must cast their morality in terms of ethics for the public to appreciate it, and not be afraid of their morality.
Ironically, this is the only real “separation of church and state” that the public demands, not the ridiculous extrapolations and interpolations that the courts have promulgated over the years.
Had a long post but that says it best. Just look how they had Ross get in in 1992.
We, the people are we, the simple ... not in a derogatory sense, but in the meat and potatoes (in honor of Dan Quail), simplified thinking that life CAN be when we just do the right thing .. as intended by God .. and not try to analyze and fund research for ...
(apologies to the grammar police for ending in a preposition ... )
It is no coincidence that Willard Romney imposed
BOTH RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE AND gay marriage.
Nor is it a coincidence that he then (and the GOP)
claimed he did neither.
The lies did not work.
Romney is the reason Obama is still pRes_ _ent.
Elder Abuse can fix some of that problem ~ (/s)
Senator Jeffords destroyed America, and all for 2 cents per gallon more on Vermont milk.
Dewey lost twice ~ Please Lord, remove Romney from consideration again we already did that one.
The cold hard facts are that most Republicans over that period lost at least once ~ even two of the winners (Bush 1 and Nixon).
The reason was simple ~ not enough Republican voters!
A few won. The reason was simple ~ not enough Democrat voters!
The whole point of a campaign is to fire up your people to turn out and vote. Jefferson did that over and over and won by landslides.
We have these guys who do the subtle nuance thing and 'move to the left' ~ whatever that is ~ and they imagine they will bring over scads of middle of the road undecided moderates!
It's much easier to get your followers registered and get them to the polls, and campaign for them to do that ~ register and vote.
Then, you want to tell the other side that their candidates are scum and not worthy to be considered human, and that's on their good days!
Nixon won when he went after MORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS, as did RONALDUS MAGNUS and, of course, IKE did the job as well.
LBJ won by getting new Democrat voters ~ the 25% of the black vote JFK left behind. Bill Clinton finessed it by getting Jugears to run, and then there's Obama ~ the Democrats got more new Democrats registered, and then got them to vote!
JFK is probably the last President to get elected mostly by fraud.
I think Pat’s purpose here is to show that the changes which have occurred were predictable and involve cultural demographics. After a short history of how the so-called ‘New Majority’ was forged, he presents arguments concerning a number of cultural changes within the US. Blaming W. does not reverse the cultural shift, and the shift will continue if the same cultural forces are allowed to operate in the same manner.
1. Immigration: Like it or not, recent (third world) immigrants do not always share traditional American values, and they will vote their values, not ours. If Pat is right in his 50 million immigrant figure, then this is a formidable shift in the voting patterns of the country. The 20 (not 12) million illegals who will soon be granted amnesty and citizenship will exacerbate the problem. When I asked my Hispanic roommate (President’s Award scholar majoring in Nuclear engineering at Texas A &M) how he could vote for Carter over Reagan in 1980 his response was simple, “Everyone knows Democrats are for minorities”.
2. Those on the government payroll, whether through salary or handout, will generally vote for pay raises for themselves. This will always translate into bigger government and higher taxes.
3. The free trade arguments are flawed by the fact that ‘free trade’ isn’t. The Chinese, the third world, and to a lesser extent Europeans, will always seek trade advantages over the ‘rich’ Americans. How can the US, with one vote, protect itself from cabals of votes from third world countries in organizations such as IMF or WTO? Isn’t it in these smaller countries interest to fleece the mighty US if they may?
4. The de-Christianization of America is a real phenomenon. Make no mistake, your sense of morality is subjective unless it issues from higher authority. It isn’t your morality unless you still adhere to it when it hurts.
So I think the point is: the America of our youth no longer exists. And the forces contributing to her demise remain unchecked.
A true Christian revival could change the values of our minority/immigrant ‘loot America’ crowd, and cause them to become responsible, contributing, productive citizens. A true Christian revival could change the values of those who rely on government for their subsistence, and cause them to become responsible, contributing, productive citizens. But I know of no other force which could counter a cultural paradigm so widespread.
Unless someone can refute these arguments I will remain convinced that a return to Christ is the only hope of restoring America.
A return to Judeo Christian values, yes.
The Constitution provides that. It’s the Constitution that has been neglected. It transcends party. The GOPe has absolutely no respect for it and that’s what makes them stupid.
What Mr. Buchanan misses is that none of the Republican politicians have been able to survive the constant disinformation campaign of the MSM. Nixon and Reagan were constantly attacked by the media. The media and the Democrats brought Nixon down and almost destroyed Reagan.
Mr. Buchanan also misses how uninformed the electorate has become. Most voters know nothing about the economy or anything else. They are “useful idiots” who vote as they are told.
Mr. Buchanan also misses the effect of the “motor voter” type laws that eliminated safeguards against voter fraud. Voter fraud today is endemic in the system. Elections in the U.S. are fast becoming like elections in the former Soviet Union.
The concept that conservatives should abandon their principles in an attempt to curry favor with the MSM and uninformed voters is a sure recipe for disaster.
The Old Majority is the new minority. Demographic analysis shows that the white, heterosexual, Christian sector of society has seen a steady decline in numbers for some time. Political upheaval is a natural (and predictable) outcome of this. In recent decades white, Christian families stopped having children in the same proportion as their parents, grandparents, etc. This was done out of a false belief that fewer children translated into uninterrupted prosperity sustainable for generations to come. Nothing was further from the truth.
they are all a bunch of aging hippies and pretty pathetic
herbert walker was a huge dissappointment
read my lips no new taxes, what a buffoon
Media partisanship (complicity), voter apathy, and systematic voter fraud have greatly damaged our system.
An amoral (secular) society tolerates such offenses. The America of our youth, with widespread adherence to Judeo-Christian values at a personal level, would require accountability for such actions.
Every year 2.5 million (mostly old, white, majority R voting) people die and are replaced by (mostly minority, heavily D voting) folks.
It definitely makes things an uphill climb.
Yep, the whole family is big disappointment to me in fact...
oh you mean the whole Bush family, yeah I totally agree, very disappointing, although I still like W some
National Review gives the 1968 election as 33% of Catholics voting republican, and in 1972 52% voting republican, which was the same as the 52% of the under 30 vote which voted for Nixon.
1972 appears to be the first time in history that the republicans won a majority of the Catholic vote, Reagan then won it twice and his veep once, and George W won 52% for wartime reelection in 2004.
Things seem to have returned to normal with Clinton, Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, and Obama all having won the Catholic voters, the Catholic vote has probably returned to it's permanent historical place.
George H.W. Bush
Yes, and for CIA commander Poppy "New World Order" Bush, it was no accident.
Everybody voted for LBJ and he won in a massive landslide, it wasn't just blacks.
LBJ did something that only one other democrat candidate has ever done in America, he won the Protestant vote.
You described my Grandparents and my parents to a “T”.
Think about it. When the USA’s largest demographic group of white/Christian/heterosexuals (who possess a long-held, cherished set of beliefs in morality, staunch work ethic, property rights, rule of law, limited government, national sovreignty, secure borders, etc.) is slowly edged out by a coalition of demographic groups with a different makeup and a different set of moral codes (in some cases radically so), you have the recipe for a seismic shift in the foundations of societal, governmental and economic systems, not just a mere replacement elected officials. The same electorate that made a president out of BHO (2X) is the same society that will tolerate (and advocate for) further injury to the former majority group out of a sense of righteous indignation in order to achieve ‘social justice’. In reality it is just the same old motivations that have plagued mankind throughout history: greed, revenge, lust, and racial hatred.
But the same success and benefits that the current coalition of demographic ‘in-groups’ now enjoy will be short-lived. The problems inherent within these groups will, with a certainty, be their demise as well. Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce. Socialists inevitably feed on their own, destroying any hope of having a productive tax base. Historically, anti-Christianism ultimately works against itself and, over time, will actually ADD to the numbers of Christianity.
And the Earth shall continue to turn and the cycle shall begin anew. It just might take a hundred years (+ or -).
In 1964 LBJ got 43 million and Goldwater received 27 million.
By 1968, though, Humphrey was back in JFK territory with just 31 million. Nixon was also back there with 32 million!
George Wallace had 10 million.
Notice, there were 73 million total voters in 1968, and 71 million total in 1964.
Presumably new black Democrat voters went with the Democrats in 1968, as well as in 1964! LBJ had swapped a large faction ~ "to wit: black voters" entirely to the Democrats. They would later go on to prove they were a power to be respected since they were usually 40% to 60% of the effective voting strength in the Democrat ranks in cities and states where they clustered.
Ain't a bad showing for a group that's only 13% of the population.
The Wallace vote demonstrated to Nixon that there were votes to be earned in the Souf'.
Out of a total 1972 vote of 76 million, Nixon got 47 million.
A close examination of the numbers will reveal that Goldwater's totals weren't all that out of line with the Republican trendline, but LBJ's certainly were thanks to the new registration of millions of black voters pursuant to the 1963 voting rights act ~ and their movement to the Democrat column.
Always remember, until 1964 the total number of black voters was far below their numbers in the population. The voting rights act eliminated barriers, massive registration took place and LBJ got them to the polls as he promised. Goldwater was a supporter of the voting rights act. He was not a supporter of the various EIEIO acts that followed and LBJ beat him like an old rug on that score.
Nixon's lopsided win over the Hapless George McGovern remains forever associated in our minds with the Chicago riots, but any analysis of votes suggests we would be better advised to think of it in terms of Southerners moving permanently to the Republican column. Again, that's a major move of a major facton ~ long predicted to happen by political scientists everywhere in the world but adroitly held back by master political theorists guiding Democrat campaigners ~ up until 1968!
I really doubt in my lifetime (20 yrs?) we’ll see anything but Democrat presidents, unless we can somehow pull off a plurality win with somebody like Bloomberg screwing the Dems via a 3rd party run.
Change their values?
Man, what a load of gibberish and confused rambling.
What were you trying to say?
The black vote shifted to LBJ and the Democrats simply because LBJ promised to pass another future civil rights law just as good as the Voting Rights Act ~
For black voters it's like Goldwater wasn't even running.
I’m sorry you are unable to retain the thread of an analysis long enough to understand what you are looking at.
That is just wrong, it was a massive landslide, history making, Johnson even won the Protestant vote and it was the last time in history that the democrats won the white vote and he did it with 59%, LBJ won everybody, just about every category of voter that there was.
Your convoluted writing and confused rambling is not my error, it is yours.
In any case, the point is that we can address these questions of who did or did not show up to vote in a given election by looking at changes in voting strength election to election.Not everybody abandoned Goldwater ~ just the antisemites and the black voters.
Republicans were able to overcome dependent populations and win elections until 1) the economic downturn made those populations larger and 2) large numbers of people in the labor force adopted social views that made them reject the GOP.
You can argue that support for mass immigration and anti-industrial trade policies or tolerance of illegal immigration and dropping millions of the income tax rolls were self-inflicted wounds. That's all the more true of the wars and the financial market chicanery. But the big shift in cultural values isn't something one can really blame on the GOP.
But that's the exception.
Who didn't abandon Goldwater? The black vote which the democrats already totally owned since 1936, or the 90% of Jewish voters who voted for LBJ?
Yeah, we all know that already, and yet the democrats have only won the Protestant vote three times, in 1932, 1936, and 1964.
In short, it wasn't so much Goldwater's drop ~ but more LBJ's gain!
That's the permanent majority that ended with Richard Nixon's victory in 1968! Buchanan, however, sees the new majority starting with Ronald Reagan although that simply heralds the permanet lodgement of the white Souvr'n voters in the Republican tent.
It is difficult for either major coalition party to advance much beyond 50% + 1 vote for long. There's not going to ever be a string of landslides like Thomas Jefferson and his friends enjoyed in the early 1800s. Our factions rejust quickly ~ right now we have a shot at UNEMPLOYED BLACK VOTERS so we needed a jobs plan to beat the Democrats over the head with in 2012.
Didn't happen. That opportunity was lost. But it's not too late for 2014, and 2016. The Great Obama Recession isn't going to end that quickly, the US is going to have used up its overseas credit with ObamaKKKare borrowing, so no more gub'mnt operated jobs programs.
We can get back that 25% and maybe more EASILY. Unfortunately the GOP-e has no will nor interest in building the party and registering new Republican voters ~ particularly unemployed black men.
I don’t know the voting tendencies of the two groups, but let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that they tend to vote socialist, big government, loot my neighbor and give it to me politics.
Certainly, change their values.
Christian is a big word, and many who self-define as Christians don’t know what it means to follow Christ.
Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Jeremiah Wright each claim to be Christians.
The Christianity that shaped the values of our forefathers was about serving the risen Christ, and recognized that the only way to know how to serve the invisible God was to study His written Word, the Bible. We believed in an unattainable, absolute, perfect God, whom we would never reach with our own efforts, but only through grace, through the sacrifice of His dear Son. But fealty to our God required us to try to live up to His commandments, knowing we would sometimes fail. Part of this commitment was commonly known as the ‘Puritan work ethic’.
This Christianity teaches that the Lord is our Provider.
Not our employer. Not our government. Not social services.
We are COMMANDED to work ‘as unto the Lord’, with the promise that our Lord will reward our efforts and provide more than enough for our needs.
We are commanded to be good stewards of what the Lord has given us, to live within our means, balance our budget, plan for the future, and honor our debts.
We are exhorted to help those in need from the money we have earned.
And we are forbidden to covet our neighbor’s possessions. If the Lord chooses to bless our neighbor, that is between him and the Lord. We don’t assume he is ‘greedy’ or ‘has too much’.
So we give to the less fortunate out of compassion, but we never take from the more fortunate out of envy. The latter is a satanic perversion of the former.
Christianity which allows me defraud my neighbor, to lie, to cheat, to live on money I have not earned, to envy, to judge the well off because they have more than I do - is not Christianity at all. Any who follow such a system need to return to Christ, regardless of their. self-appointed appellations. And if I fall short in these areas, I also need to return to Christ.
Man, sorry to tell you that LBJ won in a massive landslide that covered all categories, it wasn’t the black voters moving from 75% to 94% democrat, and it wasn’t better black turnout, and it wasn’t anti-semitic Jews voting 90% for LBJ.
Goldwater lost everyone, including 60% of men and 59% of the white vote.