|
|
| |
ELECTORAL COLLEGE OR A TRULY NATIONAL ELECTION?
|
|
One thing that the present electoral college does is to limit each state's influence on the presidential contest. That is, if a political machine in Chicago manufactures votes, the votes it influences are the property of the citizens of Illinois in the first place. So each state conducts its elections with a great deal of independence. The fight over Florida, though it affects us all, is still mostly a matter of Florida law and jurisdiction.
Because of the electoral college, there has never been a truly national election in the United States. Even the ratification of the Constitution proceeded state by state. So, while abolishing the electoral college seems like a routine step, it isn't. With a truly national election, direct control of elections would move inevitably to Washington. After all, what is done in New York would affect me as directly as much as a vote in Columbia.
Abolishing the electoral college would have been a lot harder in the past, when states actually had rights. On the upside, such abolition would soon remove much of the distinction between the Deep South and the rest of the country under the Voting Rights Act, which puts us under special Federal regulations.
The first truly national election now would not be nearly the revolutionary move it would have been just a few decades ago. But it is still a much more radical step than most people think. An intermediate step would be to keep the electoral votes assigned to each state, but get rid of the human electors, who, in a very close election like this one, could theoretically wreak havoc.
|
WHERE ARE ALL THOSE MEXICANS?
|
|
Do you remember Bush's Mexican Convention, the one that included the first speech to a national convention in Spanish? Do you remember all those Hispanic voters who were going to turn out and give California to Bush?
Nobody else does either. For a while there, the media could speak of nothing but the coming wave of Mexican votes for Bush. But when the real election day approached, everybody forgot about it.
So who gets credit for the increased Republican presidential vote? The answer, said the media, was a group to which the networks have given a brand new name. I saw it splashed across the screen on network TV.
They called it "The White Christian Right." Sounds like the Klan, doesn't it?
What a coincidence.
It is the first time I had ever seen that label. Apparently it was conjured up just for Election Night. I forget whether it was used by CBS or CNN. Or both.
But it turns out that the Mexicans did not pour out to give the "inclusive" Republican Party their support.
The reason Bush did so well, said the media, was because he got over 90% of this "White Christian Right," while his father and Dole had gotten less than 80% of it. In other words, after selling out for all those minority votes and liberal votes, Bush got a basic Republican vote, and little else. It was his gestures toward conservatism that won for him.
Once again, this was the opposite of what the media predicted.
The press called Bush's post-South Carolina campaign, "The Bob Jones Redemption Tour." As always, they said he had to go left and win all those Hispanics who were just panting to support him in California.
But in the end, it was his rightward shift to win South Carolina away from McCain that saved his base for him.
The press -- always unanimously -- gave an equally absurd analysis of why Republicans lost California. It was, they said, because Republicans had earlier sponsored popular initiatives to take public services away from illegal aliens and to abolish bilingual education. Both those initiatives won overwhelming majorities in California. But the media unanimously agree that the Mexicans who were against them on those initiatives would have voted for Bush this time if Republicans hadn't sponsored them.
Let's translate this into English. The media declares that the people who embrace bilingual education are natural Republicans. They say that the kind of Hispanics who are more worried about their illegal brethren than they are about American taxpayers would actually have trooped over to Republicanism this time.
It's insane when you state it that plainly, but all the media agree on it.
It's weird how liberals can state the most insane propositions, but they only look as ridiculous as they are when somebody translates them into straight talk. And if a conservative spoke plain English, he couldn't be respectable, so the liberals get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
The bottom line is population changes. Everybody knows that is the one thing that determines a country's future. It is also the one thing no conservative is allowed to talk about. And nobody enforces that prohibition more ferociously than respectable conservatives seeking liberal approval.
With the vast increase in liberal Hispanic population in California and other minorities elsewhere -- along with blatantly anti-white liberalism -- the Republican base at its best cannot get this close for much longer. As time passes, we will have more and more disadvantages in this respect.
It is not hopeless, unless we keep playing this mad little game of fake inclusiveness. In this game, libertarians and "Christian" conservatives wimp out on major issues and help liberals label serious opponents "racist." In return, these respectable conservatives get "anti-racist" brownie points from liberals.
They live for that.
In other words, the Great Prohibition on the right is thinking in terms of "us" versus "them." At the same time, liberals openly talk about absolutely nothing BUT "us" versus "them."
We could get some allies if we got some spine. Orientals, for example, have a lot to lose from a minority-ruled America. Even the anti-Communist Republican Cuban vote is melting away, as they move toward their fellow Hispanics. They are moving toward what is clearly the long term winning side.
As so often happens with Whitaker Online, I am simply stating what might be called a Public Secret. I am saying what everybody knows, but nobody dares mention. Population trends are determining the future, and at this time white cowardice makes liberals the sure winners.
As I have said before, I think this whole equation will change as whites become a SELF-CONSCIOUS minority. In twenty years, the political landscape will be unrecognizable, and today's respectable conservatives will be as laughable as the old Whig Party.
In the meantime, no one goes to a sure loser. We have to address who we are and how to deal with the liberal battle for immigration and other identity issues before anyone can take our long-term chances seriously.
It is hideously DIFFICULT to survive if you have to deal openly and intelligently with the issues of race, language and culture. But, in the not-so-long-run, it is IMPOSSIBLE to win if you don't.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|