Lion of the Blogosphere

The Republican Party problem

Commenter Mark writes:

One Asian female coworker I knew started crying one day at work because a Christian there was making fun of her Buddhist beliefs. An Asian woman I dated said Christians were always trying to convert her and she didn’t like it. They don’t really like blacks that much and normally wouldn’t be part of a political coalition with them but the Republican Party is identified with an overbearing and intolerant form of Christianity in their minds.

This demonstrates how the Republican Party is turning away non-Christian voters, thus preventing the party from being a successful and election-winning coalition which would include non-Christian whites and Asians.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Posted in Politics

84 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I guess there wouldn’t be a ‘problem’ with ANY of our politics if we quit letting Chinese, Mexican, Somali, and other non-patriotic groups inside the country en masse, now would there? Fifty-some years ago, before the mass immigration ‘multicultural’ movement, we didn’t have a fractured society with each different component of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion vying for power and control over the country. You’re probably too young to realize that if you’re a heterosexual, naturally-born White male of any religious belief or non-belief, you’re barely tolerated in the post-modern USA. Both parties aren’t worth a fart in a handbag, but the ‘Republicans’ have been labeled the “WHITE MALE” party. Therefore, it’s dead. Nobody wants White males anymore. Your point is moot. The future of the country belongs to the Socialist, Blaxican, transgendered, homosexual Feminists, haven’t you heard?

    Alabastrine Excellence

    March 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM

    • Well, you are mostly right about the public opinion of the republican party. Except, that a lot of white male liberals don’t see it that way. When I was a liberal, I had no idea that this was how the Republican Party was labeled and I was fairly astute. Although, I read the internet much less back then. I thought it was merely the party of wealthy capitalists that didn’t care about anyone below the upper middle class. This is how print media always portrayed it as attacking the white angle, I suppose, was still to politically volatile to put in a mainstream newspaper back then.

      Most white males are prone to reason. The issue is that they are deprived of information to make an informed decision about politics. Even the smartest of white male passive liberals would have a difficult time discussing the nature of politics with me on a truly meaningful level, due to lack of information that prevents them from conducting a meaningful analysis. Once certain information and perspectives are brought to light, the logic that leads to social conservatism is fairly evident and you would find that a lot of these white male liberals, if not a lot of white female liberals, would switch parties.

      The point I’m meandering to is that it’s okay if the Republican party is the party of white people. It’s okay if we lose elections, as long as we stick together under the same banner. The adversity will make us communally stronger and therefore politically stronger, assuming that we aren’t being outright physically oppressed ala communist Russia. The keystone, however, is white women. The greatest political coup that the left ever devised was convincing white women that they were their own political interest outside of the interests of white men. No successful political group is split along gender, sexual orientation, or other such lines. In groups that are allowed to be successful by the PTB, the group good is allowed to come first over the individual good. That’s how you can spot who is preordained for success. In groups that are picked for failure, the MSM does everything that they can to individualize and fracture the group into a myriad of different special interests.

      Hopefully, racial and social pressure will force whites into a tighter political group in the near future. Whether or not it is under the banner of the republican party isn’t so relevant but it would be convenient to a point. Although, republican ideology is somewhat confused in the modern day due to liberal tactics. One thing that conservative whites should stop doing is reading Ayn Rand.


      March 23, 2014 at 1:27 AM

  2. All coalitions have these problems. It is in the very nature of a political coalition. Believe it or not, there are groups of Democrats who dislike each other.


    March 20, 2014 at 10:25 AM

    • It doesn’t matter. The Democrats have three great strengths:
      1) They’re motivated
      2) They’re organized
      3) They share common objectives.

      They have other advantages, but those three are what really put them on top,… and they are on top.

      So-called “conservatives,” to put it simply, are all Americans who’ve made the liberal shit list for one reason or another, the ones who didn’t get with the program. It’s a diverse crew. That’s all “conservative” means. It’s the agreed-upon designation for non-liberals.

      There is only one issue on which at least eighty percent of conservatives agree, and that’s gun rights. When it comes to defending the Second Amendment, we’re motivated, organized, and in pursuit of one objective. For better or worse, it’s the only battle we’ve managed to successfully fight in this political war that we are destined to lose.


      March 20, 2014 at 7:28 PM

      • 3 strengths?

        Don’t forget the whole:

        they control school curriculum
        they control the major media outlets
        and therefore they control the Overton Window


        Those are the reasons why they achieve their hegemony in the realm of public opinion. Even professional conservative politicians tend to be fairly liberal in practice, because they want to keep their jobs.

        Their motivation comes from 12+ years of indoctrination at the taxpayers expense. Their organization comes from said motivation as well as a lot of elite and union funding. All true political groups have common objectives, including conservatives that aren’t confused. Confusion is easy to fall into because, well, the liberals own the media outlets.

        Democracy is about who can bully the next group the most effectively. It’s a sham.


        March 23, 2014 at 1:08 AM

    • What I failed to mention, in reference to point number 3, is that liberals almost always put aside their personal feelings or agendas to support their team; “conservatives” do not.


      March 20, 2014 at 7:29 PM

  3. Well, we already knew this. What are some strategies for successfully changing the GOP? That is the question.


    March 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM

  4. The bluest states are the ones where Christians are the meekest or least religious: the Northeast, the West Coast and the Upper Midwest (i.e. Lutheran Minnesota). The Northeast and Upper Midwest are among the whitest parts of the country, so by racial breakdown they should be much more Republican.

    The reddest states are the ones where Christians are the most assertive. Mississippi, which has the highest percentage of blacks among all states, is reliably red. Texas and California both have high hispanic populations and are demographically similar. One is very red, one is very blue. One is assertively Christian, and one is not.

    This refutes your thesis, Lion.


    March 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

    • No, it demonstrates my point that hardcore Christian types dominate the Republican Party.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM

      • Politics has always been about religious or tribal control. Religions are simply mechanisms by which tribal members achieve in-group trust. For the Progressive Tribe Blank Slate-ism is the religion of choice. America is, at present, divided politically between these two massive religious groups, Christians and Blank Slaters. You will never have a political party that isn’t also some form of religious group. At least not one whose goal is achieving power rather than operating as a permanent outsider comment group (libertarians).


        March 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM

      • No, they do not. You simply don’t understand American politics. Why don’t you try reading something besides a newspaper.

        The GOP can be divided into four primary interest groups – the economic conservatives, the military conservatives, the religious conservatives, and the national conservatives.

        Of these four groups, the religious conservatives are the second most numerous (behind the economic conservatives), but only the third most powerful in setting the policy agenda (behind the economic and military conservatives).

        Social conservatives are more used by the GOP establishment than they are in control of it, and they certainly are not the reason Republicans are losing support.

        You’re motivated by an absurd anti-Christian bias that is every bit as over-the-top as JS’s anti-Asian bias.

        Pincher Martin

        March 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

      • I think Pincher is mostly right here. I think the misunderstanding actually comes from the fact that religious conservatives tend to speak pretty loudly and/or in ways that draw a lot of attention. They’ve also been making some headway on the abortion issue, which has made some of the words matter more to some previously Republican voters.


        March 20, 2014 at 1:54 PM

      • “…the economic conservatives, the military conservatives, the religious conservatives, and the national conservatives…”

        1. the economic conservatives (CRAZY)
        2. the military conservatives (INSANE)
        3. the religious conservatives (BONKERS)
        4. the national conservatives (civil war reenactors)

        jorge videla

        March 21, 2014 at 11:02 PM

  5. What should the Republican party stand for? Low taxes on the rich would be suicidal. Right to bear arms? Anti-surveillance is dorky for most common people…


    March 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM

  6. In all the advanced nations, the only answer I see to opposing Leftism (in all its forms) is to form populist parties. That means parties that support:

    An end to most immigration, legal and illegal plus sending back to their home countries people in the country illegally
    A strong defense but non-interventionist foreign policy
    Strong tariffs on just about everything to put domestic workers back on the job
    Tough crime laws and severe prisons
    Death penalties with speedy execution
    Gun ownership and the right to defend life and property with deadly force
    Removal of vagrants from the streets
    Forcing the mentally ill into institutions
    “To each” according to some mix of how hard/long each person works and how productive they are
    Forced government jobs for everyone who can’t find work in the private sector
    An end to affirmative action

    But, with reference to this post, I’m not sure what the popular position would be on religious issues.


    March 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    • Gun ownership is very popular among proles in rural areas with a gun culture.

      But gun RESTRICTION is very popular among people living in urban areas who don’t own guns or have a gun culture, but who worry about violent crime.

      It’s hard to reconcile.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 20, 2014 at 11:23 AM

      • The reconciliation would be owner licensing involving background checks for mental stability, plus locked storage requirements so kids can’t get to guns. That would probably be the populist view. This is what the U.K. laws are, and they have very few mass shootings. But the U.K. doesn’t allow you to defend life or property with deadly force. Whereas the populist view is that that should be allowed.


        March 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM

      • All gun control would really do is disarm law-abiding Americans, most of them white. There are too many guns in the country already, and more would be brought in to fill the void created by an end to OTC sales. I’m not exactly Captain Republican, but gun control looks a lot like one of those liberal solutions that will completely fail to accomplish what it was intended to do but can’t be reversed once it’s put into place.

        It’s the one issue that really is an uphill battle for liberals. But they could do a whole lot better if they would be a little more honest. But, being that dishonesty is a way of life for liberals, that will never happen.


        March 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      • That may have been true as recently as the 1990’s, but outside of the Northeast, it’s not true anymore. Proles in rural areas primarily own guns for hunting. So-called “Assault Weapon” bans don’t affect them because the guns they own tend to be the old-fashioned metal with wood type that aren’t controversial.

        Gun ownership is surging most among those who primarily own and carry for personal protection and take up indoor target shooting as a weekend hobby: this means upper-middle class suburbanites, and the trend is spreading to their kids (non-NAM recent college graduates). These are the people who give money to the NRA and call their legislators on Second Amendment issues that further their interests. The only reason this change hasn’t hit the Northeast yet is because most of those states have yet to adopt shall-issue concealed carry laws. The Northeast also tends to be the last region of the country to adopt the relatively few culturally-conservative trends that have national significance. And the biggest of these in the past 20 years has been gun rights: it’s the one battle in the war that the right has been unbelievably successful on because they use the same tactics that liberals do on everything else.

        Bilbo Baggins

        March 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM

  7. Oh please. Using this kind of anecdote to explain national voting trends is ridiculous and indicative more of the kind of silly people found at this site than the kind of silly people found in the Republican Party.

    Asian Americans vote for the Democratic Party because that is the default party outsiders typically identify with and vote for. The Democratic Party has been the main political party representing these outsiders to the core American experience since at least the late nineteenth century: Catholics, Jews, southerners, poor farmers wanting cheap money, Irish, African-Americans, gays, immigrants, Hispanics, single women, etc.

    Occasionally, the GOP wins over a small sub-group of these “outsiders” – Cubans or Vietnamese during the Cold War, for example, who liked the party’s strong stance against communism. But that is a rare occurrence. The Republicans almost always represent those groups and people who identify strongly with core American values – the patriots, nationalists, the successful and the striving, the traditionalists, etc. That’s the way it’s always been, and it’s not going to change anytime soon.

    Real changes only occur when one of the outside groups begins to identify with core American values. This happened to both southerners and Catholics in the last half century. Catholics were huge Democratic supporters until the 1970s, when the Democratic Party became too outré for many of them and they began migrating to the GOP. They’re now a swing vote. But if you consider just white Catholics, then they are definitely a GOP core group.

    It was the GOP’s support of traditional values that won over Catholics. They were turned off by the hippies and pacifists who took over the Democratic Party. Those Catholics identified with helping the poor, but not with sexual liberation or international communism. So they began leaving the party.

    The same thing happened with southerners. The Democratic Party had thrived with both southerners and blacks in its coalition through the fat years of the New Deal to the inauguration of LBJ. But northern liberals began to put more of their weight behind the needs of African-Americans, alienating many southerners.

    The Civil Rights Era (1945-1965) was just the beginning of this. There were still a lot of southern Democrats in the 1970s and even the 1980s. The final insult for southerners was the Democrats’ turn toward a McGovernite foreign policy. By the 1990s, the conversion was complete and the final Boll Weevils either retired (Lloyd Bentsen, etc.) or switched parties (Richard Shelby, etc.). At both the local and national level, white southerners started to identify as strongly with the GOP as they once had with the Democratic Party just fifty years before.

    The so-called Blue Dog Democrats are just a pale shadow of this once powerful group. In fact, Reagan’s bipartisanship was built on the fact that many southern Democrats supported his agenda. Phil Graham, for example, was a Democrat in 1981. People forget this now, and assume that Reagan was a moderate who reached across the aisle. He was not a moderate. He simply came to the presidency in a period when conservatives were found in both parties.

    Asian Americans vote for the Democratic Party for the same reason that eighty percent of non-Americans would vote for the Democratic Party if given the franchise. They don’t identify with core American values.

    Pincher Martin

    March 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

    • Well said, PIncher.


      March 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    • Good comment. The only Asians that I know that vote Republican are Korean, many of whom are very religious and thus identify with core Republican values.


      March 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM

    • This is a pretty smart post, but Reagan was moderate when you take a longer view of history. He voted for FDR 4 times, and despite being the most popular republican president of the century, didn’t try to roll back any of the New Deal (or Great Society). Reagan cut income taxes significantly, but he also signed off on a big increase in payroll taxes, which saved FDR’s signature achievement.

      It’s like the old reactionary lament that a conservative is a lefty from 50 years ago.

      Dave Pinsen

      March 20, 2014 at 12:47 PM

      • Sorry, Dave, but Reagan wasn’t a moderate. He was as far to the right as any U.S. president has been since Calvin Coolidge. People at the time in both parties identified Reagan as being far to the right for a mainstream candidate.

        There’s a reason why Republican congressmen John Anderson ran against Reagan as an independent in 1980. (Anderson was the last gasp of liberal Republicanism.) There’s a reason why Carter breathed a sigh of relief when Reagan won the GOP nomination that year. (Carter believed that the moderate Howard Baker was a much stronger opponent.) There’s a reason why Reagan ran against Gerald Ford in 1976 and did so by turning hard right on communism, the Panama Canal, and detente. (Ford was so fearful of the hard right that he dumped Nelson Rockefeller as his VP, taking on Bob Dole instead.)

        Reagan did not overturn the New Deal because in the end he couldn’t overturn it. He didn’t have the political strength to overturn it. But despite idolizing FDR as a young man, Reagan was as ideologically inclined against the New Deal as any GOP presidential candidate (other than Barry Goldwater) in the last ninety years. It’s just modern revisionists who want the public to believe that Reagan was successful because he was a moderate.

        Pincher Martin

        March 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM

      • Pincher,

        Reagan didn’t try to overturn the New Deal because he largely agreed with it. And I don’t know which modern revisionists you are referring to who claim Reagan was a moderate; if anything, most right wing pundits today cite Reagan as a paragon of conservatism. But they miss a couple of key points about Reagan.

        1) Reagan understood the importance of economic security. The “Reagan Democrats” were free to vote for him for cultural reasons (patriotism, guns, etc.) because their economic security was covered by unionized manufacturing jobs (jobs that Reagan defended with the threat of tariffs against the Japanese, prompting them to increase their manufacturing in the US).

        2) Reagan placated social conservatives without implementing much of their agenda. Heck, as governor of California, Reagan had signed a pro-abortion bill into law.

        Dave Pinsen

        March 20, 2014 at 8:30 PM

      • Dave,

        “Reagan didn’t try to overturn the New Deal because he largely agreed with it.”

        You mean, like the Tennessee Valley Authority? Reagan was fired in 1962 by General Electric for criticizing the New Deal program.

        Or how about the time Reagan said that “fascism was the basis for the New Deal” in his 1976 primary campaign against Gerald Ford? A quote, by the way, that had more than a little truth to it, but was a highly impolitic thing for a mainstream politician to say. Nevertheless, Reagan reiterated his statement both as a presidential candidate in 1980 and as president in 1981.

        Reagan also said in 1964 that he would make Social Security “voluntary,” a statement that was used against him in 1980 when he was running for president.

        It’s true that President Reagan would later raise payroll taxes to help fund Social Security, but this is not evidence he agreed with the program. He simply didn’t have the enormous political capital required to change it, and so he decided to be responsible and pay for it.

        “….and despite being the most popular republican president of the century, didn’t try to roll back any of the New Deal (or Great Society).”

        Of course, as I showed above, Reagan tried to reverse many things about both the New Deal and the Great Society. Here is a headline from 1983: REAGAN BLAMES ‘GREAT SOCIETY’ FOR ECONOMIC WOES

        From the article:

        President Reagan said tonight that food stamps, the minimum wage, Federal urban renewal and the entire array of Great Society programs enacted in the 1960’s had destroyed the economy and made Americans poorer than they were 15 years ago.

        He also likened the rise of government programs in the last 50 years to the ”abuse of power” by King George III that brought on the Revolution.

        Still want to argue with me that Reagan was a moderate who didn’t want to roll back the New Deal and Great Society?

        Reagan was a conservative. No president in modern U.S. history has cut regulations as much as Reagan did or cut back on spending on non-military discretionary spending as much he did. At the time he was savaged for doing it, too.

        “And I don’t know which modern revisionists you are referring to who claim Reagan was a moderate; if anything, most right wing pundits today cite Reagan as a paragon of conservatism.”

        I’m not talking about right wingers. I’m talking about the mainstream media, which likes to pretend that Reagan was a moderate who worked well with Tip O’Neill, and that conservatives today are too loony and ideological to work across the aisle with anyone.

        The truth is that Reagan worked well with many Democrats in that era because political ideologies weren’t as segregated by political party as they are today. There were still a lot of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and so Reagan had no trouble finding bipartisan support for his conservative economic and foreign policies.

        I actually had one woman tell me that Reagan was a moderate, unlike that nasty conservative Mitt Romney. She had no idea how far off the mark she was.

        “1) Reagan understood the importance of economic security. The “Reagan Democrats” were free to vote for him for cultural reasons (patriotism, guns, etc.) because their economic security was covered by unionized manufacturing jobs (jobs that Reagan defended with the threat of tariffs against the Japanese, prompting them to increase their manufacturing in the US).”

        I’m laughing at the idea of Reagan as a pro-union Republican. Tell it to the 12,000 air controllers he fired.

        Yes, Reagan belonged to a union for about six years back in the forties and fifties. But he used his tenure mainly to help root out Hollywood commies, not improve working conditions for actors. More to the point, as president, he passed no labor laws, failed to raise the minimum wage, and stacked the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union people.

        “2) Reagan placated social conservatives without implementing much of their agenda. Heck, as governor of California, Reagan had signed a pro-abortion bill into law.”

        Reagan signed that bill into law back in 1967 before abortion became a major national issue. So in hindsight that act seems more significant than it was at the time. He also immediately regretted signing the bill and soon became pro-life.

        Pincher Martin

        March 21, 2014 at 1:15 AM

      • Pincher,

        “Or how about the time Reagan said that “fascism was the basis for the New Deal”

        As you note, it had some truth to it. It’s also worth considering the context. Reagan was old enough to remember when fascism didn’t have the baggage of Nazism.

        “Of course, as I showed above, Reagan tried to reverse many things about both the New Deal and the Great Society.”

        Great Society was LBJ. Other than having ketchup classified as a vegetable, what did Reagan reverse of either? Anything as significant as Clinton’s welfare reform?

        Re regulations: yes, Reagan did cut some of them. But it’s worth remembering that Carter started the deregulation trend. And crediting Reagan for cutting “non military discretionary spending” is faint praise, considering all other spending exploded on his watch. He may have been the first conservative president who wasn’t a fiscal conservative. You can argue it was worth it, in that it hastened the end of the Cold War, but fiscal facts are facts.

        “I’m laughing at the idea of Reagan as a pro-union Republican. Tell it to the 12,000 air controllers he fired.”

        They were public sector workers who were legally prohibited from striking. The fact remains that Reagan Dems were largely union members.

        Reagan may have become Pro Life after signing that abortion bill in California, but abortion was as legal after 8 years of him being president as it was before. W. got partial birth abortion restricted. Reagan didn’t.

        Dave Pinsen

        March 21, 2014 at 7:07 PM

      • Dave,

        “As you note, it had some truth to it. It’s also worth considering the context. Reagan was old enough to remember when fascism didn’t have the baggage of Nazism.”

        But Reagan was a politician, not a public philosopher. He knew his comments were controversial and potentially dangerous to his political prospects, yet he kept making them. That indicates he believed in what he was saying and thought it important to publicly undermine the New Deal. A moderate politician wouldn’t have bothered with that.

        “Great Society was LBJ. Other than having ketchup classified as a vegetable, what did Reagan reverse of either? Anything as significant as Clinton’s welfare reform?”

        But your initial point was that Reagan “didn’t try to roll back any of the New Deal (or Great Society),” not that he failed to roll them back.

        And you’re wrong. Reagan most certainly did try to roll those programs back. He cut the hell out of their budgets. He rolled back regulation supporting them. He used the bully pulpit to rail against them.

        That some of these attempts didn’t succeed in the short term and some failed in the long run is beside the point. Reagan was president, not God. His will was often not enough, and he had other priorities, including winning the Cold War and reviving the economy. His Republican successors as president were also much less conservative than he was.

        But Reagan was conservative, and he did try to undermine the New Deal and Great Society programs.

        “Re regulations: yes, Reagan did cut some of them. But it’s worth remembering that Carter started the deregulation trend.”

        I agree. Carter was far more conservative in many ways than most people know, just as Nixon was far more liberal than most people know.

        “And crediting Reagan for cutting “non military discretionary spending” is faint praise, considering all other spending exploded on his watch.”

        No president in the modern era has cut non-defense discretionary spending more than Reagan. He cut it in absolute terms, not just inflationary terms.

        Military spending was different. Reagan knew that increase, huge as it became, was temporary. As soon as the Cold War was won, the US could cut military spending. And indeed that’s exactly what happened in the 1990s under Clinton – the so-called “peace dividend.” Reagan deserves credit for that.

        But look again at discretionary spending. The differences between Bush and Reagan, for example, were astounding. (Look at the table at the bottom of the page.)

        “They were public sector workers who were legally prohibited from striking.”

        Yes, and it was still a shock that a president was willing to fire them.

        “Reagan may have become Pro Life after signing that abortion bill in California, but abortion was as legal after 8 years of him being president as it was before.”

        Again, this is anachronistic reasoning. The Supreme Court had declared that abortion was legal. Reagan couldn’t do a thing about that except appoint more conservative judges, which he did, and give a rhetorical nod towards the value of life, which he did.

        Pincher Martin

        March 21, 2014 at 8:21 PM

    • I disagree on some minor points, but I think there is a lot of truth here. The question is how to bring more people inside the tent, so to speak, where they feel that they are defending core values instead of being the one that core values are defending against.


      March 20, 2014 at 1:58 PM

      • There is no way to bring more people inside the tent for any form of conservative party. David Axelrod has been smart enough to realize that the way to lock more people into being automatic Democratic Party voters is to keep spending more money and get more people hook on government programs.

        The future is that southern whites will eventually be just more more block inside the Democratic Party and will be fighting over government programs and who has to pay for them. Then those southern whites will be able to forge a short term alliance with Asians.


        March 20, 2014 at 7:18 PM

      • My guess is that the end result would then be a party we would not call a conservative party but is called a conservative party the same way that the Conservative Party in the UK is called the same. I know on this we disagree.

        The game is over if and when the Southern Whites leave the Republican Party. At that point, there is no GOP anymore and the Democratic unity folds without the common enemy. At that point you *probably* have a Fenty Party and a Gray Party. Which, at some point, become two different parties. Probably with the Fenty Party occupying “the right” but hiding the word “conservative” even more aggressively than Democrats have hidden the word “Liberal.”

        But, as always, the Democratic Party needs a viable Republican Party to stay united. The best way for the Democratic Party to maintain its lead is for the white southerners to have *just enough* electoral influence to be a periodic credible threat, or at least retain dominance in the South and certain rural western states. But once southern whites are gone, and Mormons are gone, the Democratic Party has no reason to paper over their internal differences.


        March 20, 2014 at 10:15 PM

    • I think Pincher is dead right with this.

      The left thinks that Southern Democrats began deserting the party because of civil rights, but the real deal breaker was McGovern becoming the Democratic candidate in 1972. He was anti war and seemed communist friendly. Being a war hero didn’t earn him any credibility since at that time, so was everyone else. That year was the last gasp of the segregationists with George Wallace’s candidacy. After he was shot, for many patriotic southerners, Nixon was the only choice. So for the first time in their lives for some, southerners went with the Republicans. No southern strategy was required.

      Mike Street Station

      March 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM

      • School busing played a major role. Busing conflicts in Boston received the headlines, but if you track what actually happened in Southern cities like Memphis that were forced to bus there was massive white flight. Once you are forced to move because of the policies of a particular political party you will oppose that party. To the degree busing was part of the civil rights agenda, it was civil rights that guaranteed the South would turn against the Democrats. BTW – the battle over public schools still hasn’t ended in Memphis.


        March 21, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    • This comment nails it. I’m pretty sure Lion was trolling with this post.


      March 20, 2014 at 3:00 PM

    • One core American value Asians might identify with is bootstrap meritocracy, hence they might oppose Affirmative Action and the welfare state.


      March 20, 2014 at 4:37 PM

    • pink martini does drone on.

      what sort of person is he?

      what sort of person makes long blog comments?

      perhaps he’s writing for his own benefit only.

      i only comment in my cups, deep in my cups. but that’s almost every day. hmmmm…maybe ethanol does kill brain cells.

      jorge videla

      March 21, 2014 at 11:00 PM

      • Jorgeous Jorge,

        I’m glad you care about the length of my posts, as you are my favorite poster by far. If you find them dragging on, take another long draught from your cup and that should help clarify my intent.

        Pincher Martin

        March 22, 2014 at 1:44 AM

  8. If the Repukes don’t explicitly appeal to Christian desires, then Christians stay home and don’t vote, duh. Your idea, which is probably a troll, that Repukes give up on appealing to Christians would result in the ‘pukes getting fewer votes, not more. QED: 2012, and that was with a candidate many Christians consider to be a Christian.

    sciences with lisps

    March 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM

    • Populism would keep most of those voters in the Republican party and bring them to the polls.


      March 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    • Correct. Prole and bourgeois white Christians are the whites who are reproducing themselves, not urban cognitive elites.

      I had a discussion about this with an old commie family member who was railing about the Gay Holocaust that Christians are supposedly preparing to unleash. Look at enlightened, secular France!, the old commie says. What about it, I said. In 50 years it will be Muslim. He frowned. “Their (Muslim immigrant) children will be secular!” Okay, I said. How’s that timeline playing out in Syria and Lebanon? End of discussion.

      Bottom line, I think the secular state is a temporary phenomenon.

      Actually, speaking of France, in 50 years the Catholics may make the Muslims jump in the Meditteranean and start swimming home.

      The Anti-Gnostic

      March 20, 2014 at 12:31 PM

      • I think that explains the left’s embrace of Islam. They want to use it as a hammer to destroy Western Civ, but think after that job is done, they can tame it and turn Muslims to good urban metrosexuals.

        Mike Street Station

        March 20, 2014 at 2:04 PM

      • the Gay Holocaust that Christians are supposedly preparing to unleash.

        lol wut

        Samson J.

        March 20, 2014 at 7:40 PM

      • My new catch phrase. Muslim metrosexuals = Muslosexuals.


        March 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM

    • The Repubs will be the Christian party as long as it wins the bulk of real Christians, just as the Repubs are the White party despite never ever appealing to Whites as Whites, like they should. Those annoying Christians aren’t going to stop being annoying Christians just because the party leadership changes.


      March 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM

    • Romney was hurt because too many Christians believe his church to be a cultish fraud. Especially Christians from states like Ohio where families still remember the Mormon wars of over 100 years ago. Romney was a total ‘own goal’ by the party.


      March 21, 2014 at 1:13 AM

  9. I wonder if the Republicans will ever get over being the stupid party. I met with my Congressman earlier this week – he’s a very conservative Republican and a member of the House leadership. We got to talking about the upcoming elections. I suggested that the Democrats had made the Republicans a gift of two major issues to exploit – Obamacare and the Crimea situation. These combined to make Obama look like a liar, a fool and a wuss. He agreed and then volunteered that the House had to do “something” about immigration reform this year! I was appalled and told him he was trying to hand the election right back to the Democrats – no issue would do a better job of shattering the GOP coalition. He didn’t like what I said.

    Black Death

    March 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM

  10. Christians significantly outnumber Asians.



    March 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM

  11. I would argue that common religion (Christianity is the only candidate) is actually something that could bind at least some minorities to the Republican party.

    Democracy easily collapses into tribalism. Without the glue of religion, how do you suppose tribes that are clearly different would vote Republican?


    March 20, 2014 at 12:19 PM

    • The glue that could hold the Republican coalition together is a shared belief in freedom. The Republicans could be the party of people who just want to be left alone to live their lives as they want and to keep the fruits of their labor. Instead of a party of one religion, they could be the party that believes in religious freedom for all. The Democrats can be the party of people who want things given to them and to be taken care of. They can be the party of the black welfare mom and the lazy government bureaucrat. The Democrats can never really be the party of religious freedom because a main part of their coalition are the public school teacher unions who would love to see all private religious schools eliminated and all children forced into government run schools. I think there are still enough people in this country who believe in freedom that the Republicans can win elections if that’s what they stand for.


      March 20, 2014 at 6:01 PM

  12. You’re an idiot. Someone tells you an anecdote and you extrapolate that to “Republicans are KKKonservative Christians who hate non-Christians, especially Asians.” Get the hell out of here.

  13. I know this is going to come as a shock to some people, but you already live in a Christian society. In fact, secularism and leftism are just heresies of Christianity. So pretty much no getting away from Christian cooties.


    March 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM

    • Spot on! But I think Liberalism is a form of Neo-Paganism.

      Bobos worship multiculturalism (a modern form of polytheism), and all the trappings with it.

      Have some Sushi, Champagne and Macroons. Let’s call it an offering to the hedonistic forces that allow us to enjoy a moment of delight. Oh I almost forgot, threesome sex (fornication orgies) is part of the ordeal! – The Romans


      March 20, 2014 at 10:19 PM

    • This. Is. Correct.


      March 21, 2014 at 1:18 AM

  14. That congressman sounds like a smart fellow. Unless the flow of non-European immigrants is controlled, the current GOP is toast and very soon. Which it deserves. It has pandered to every group out there, except their base, white people. They can’t openly serve the interests of their base constituents because that would be “racist”. They run around trying to get Hispanics to vote Republican? What a joke. Hispanics want free shit from Uncle Sam for themselves. Black Republicans? That’s 1 in 1000, yet they still spend time doing that, to show they aren’t racist. Again a total clown show. The GOP will eventually be replaced by the “white party” but that is a ways out because as long as joe six pack and sally soccermom can still run to the shrinking gated communities away from the diversity, they will continue to cower politically and repeat the diversity is strength mantras pushed on them from birth. Whites will soon be a minority in not just America, but all white western nations because of the same policy of unlimited non-white immigration being pushed by the hostile elites seeking to replace the native white populations with easily controlled balkanized racial babylons. Only when the pain becomes too great, will it over power the pathological altruism that blinds whites to the reality that the only race on the planet that doesn’t believe it needs to work for their own interests, are white people. Western Civilization continues to lose until that day arrives. But please do continue discussing how to get more Catholic Somalis to vote for the white guy for president, its great entertainment.


    March 20, 2014 at 2:10 PM

  15. Just going with anecdotes, a good number of affluent Asian-Americans of my acquaintance are hardcore Evangelical Christians.


    March 20, 2014 at 2:10 PM

    • I have always thought of most Korean churches as places for networking and multilevel marketing instead of places of worship. I have always assumed that most Asians who appear to be hardcore evangelical Christians are really just putting on an act because none of them ever become missionaries or go to seminary. I think most most Asians are more into religious prosperity (word of faith) than actually being religious.


      March 21, 2014 at 5:30 AM

  16. SWPLs constantly make fun of Christianity and try to convert people out of it. Asians will vote with the SWPLs as long as the SWPLs are in their dominant position. Plus, Asians benefit from mass immigration.


    March 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM

  17. The story doesn’t “demonstrate” anything at all, other than that many people are predisposed to feel non-existent oppression. In 2002 in Berkeley I parked in front of an Asian frat house, with about 2 feet of clearance past their driveway. A kid came out to complain that I was blocking it. Completely ingenuously, I told him to open his eyes, to which he replied, “oh great, a racial slur!” Then there was the Asian woman whom tried to cut in front of me in a bus line in SF. When I asked her to wait her turn, she called me “wife-beater.” Neither of these people would vote conservative even if Richard Dawkins were heading the ticket.

    buzz halcion

    March 20, 2014 at 2:50 PM

  18. The GOP needs to return to being the pragmatic party, like under Reagan and Bush. Fortunately, the primary process is effective at weeding out the extreme, unelectable candidates. A combination if a solid GOP candidate, economic weakness in 2016 and or a sudden, large unexpected rise in gas and oil prices before the election could help the GOP secure the oval office.

    grey enlightenment

    March 20, 2014 at 2:53 PM

    • It would seem the circumstances would be more difficult, given that Obama won after the resurgence of the Tea Party and much of the “hope” zeal of his first election has fizzled out.


      March 20, 2014 at 7:40 PM

      • Obama won because the Republican party committed suicide by running the absolute worst candidate of recent memory. A southern-centered traditionalist Christian party during a recession running a Yankee financier who is also a prominent member of a cult was the kind of mind boggling stupid act that only people totally immersed in the DC echo chamber could have conceived. And yet, it happened with the inevitable result.


        March 21, 2014 at 1:27 AM

  19. What kind of a job does Mark work at? I’m not saying this kind of thing doesn’t happen but I have never seen anyone mocked for any kind of religious belief at work – given the current climate of nonjudgmentalism being the greatest virtue, the people I run across are more likely to err in the opposite direction, i.e. everyone treads on eggshells.

    Jokah Macpherson

    March 20, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    • The majority of Asians I’ve met were Christians.

      The story sounds like it’s made up. I don’t see that happening. I don’t see someone start crying because their Buddhist beliefs were made fun of. I’m guessing if you’re a serious Buddhist, you’re already hardened to that sort of attack, since, like, the age of 10.

      And if someone starts talking about Buddhism, which has been getting more and more mainstream, with people like Steve Jobs stating they are Buddhists, I would take it as someone being facetious or pseudo-spiritual with no real weight to their conversation. I would treat it the same way as someone talking about their new yoga class.

      A random Asian person talking about annoying Christians doesn’t sound that much different from some other random person talking about some annoying Jehovah’s witnesses.


      March 20, 2014 at 9:34 PM

  20. There is no evidence that evangelical Christians have ever caused the defeat of any Republican presidential candidate. They are an indispensable part of the Republican coalition and there simply aren’t enough urban agnostic HBD supporters to replace them. Although this story of an Asian Buddhist reduced to tears by a nervy Christian co-worker bent on proselytizing sounds a bit fake to me Ill say this: evangelicals do have to be reigned in from time to time. There is a time and place to talk about religion. At the workplace is not one of them. Even in Bible study books, the authors tell you that the way to win people to Christ is NOT to shake them by the lapels and scream “you’re going to hell!” This last line was meant to be figurative, of course. But yes, there are evangelicals who get carried away and often violate social norms. However, if episodes like this are influencing your vote then you already have your mind made up.

    I personally think this fear that the Republicans have no future due to the NAMification of America is overblown. A lot of the Democratic vote in the last 2 elections was personal loyalty to Obama. It won’t transcend his presidency. It isn’t that NAMs will start to vote Republican, but that they’ll probably go back to their low pre-Obama turnout rates. Also, whites are getting more racially conscious – even if they don’t admit it publicly.


    March 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

  21. I almost posted my own experience with a Chinese girlfriend (by way of Bolivia), but deemed it unacceptably anecdotal. In my experience, it’s fair to say a high percentage of foreign born Asians are rapacious capitalists. They’re also extremely clannish, and racist toward out-groups, especially blacks and latinos (like my ex, and her friends). Whites are OK, especially SWPLs such as myself. Religious whites, nationalistic whites — no way.

    She voted for Obama, probably because that’s what everyone on Facebook was doing. I’ll never forget when she asked me if he was a Democrat or a Republican.

    Vince, the Lionhearted

    March 20, 2014 at 8:16 PM

    • Asians believe in a zero sum game, unlike individuals who are of Christian, Muslim and even Jewish extract, that capitalism has its destructive downside. The Asian variant of capitalism doesn’t believe in humanitarian uplifting and progress.


      March 20, 2014 at 10:49 PM

      • There is a nobility to Capitalism when it’s studied theoretically/academically. However, real world working models of Capitalism are ultimately devoured by the human parasitic vision of those who participate.

        Socially Extinct

        March 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

      • American Capitalism has made us richer, and more equitable.

        Why are so many East Asians flooding our shores, if they are such great capitalists? That’s because their societies is all about a zero sum game. The winner tries to takes all and everyone else get nothing!


        March 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM

      • American Capitalism has made us richer, and more equitable.

        Why are so many East Asians flooding our shores, if they are such great capitalists? That’s because their societies is all about a zero sum game. The winner tries to take all and everyone else get nothing!


        March 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM

      • Japanese are not flooding our shores. Only Asians from poor countries. And the poverty of China can easily be explained by historically bad government.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

      • “American” capitalism is unsustainable. Its weakness is avarice and self-perpetuating cronyism and gradual elimination of principle as a guiding force. It’s not even capitalism any more.

        Socially Extinct

        March 22, 2014 at 4:09 PM

    • LOL you deemed it “unacceptably anecdotal” but went right ahead and blustered through an oblique series of indirect anecdotes. I love the internet!

      Grasshoppa say those who embrace their SWPLness must be prodded with a bamboo stick. Not because they need it, but because they like it.

      Socially Extinct

      March 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM

  22. I agree with Jokah. As for the Asian girl who is bothered by the Christian prosletizing, my suspicion is that she lives in the deep south, Texas, or Oklahoma. I’d further bet that she went there for job reasons, without bothering to at least do a little homework on the place she was moving to. Assuming I’m correct, this is a little bit like buying a house near an airport, and then saying “WTF? Nobody told me there were going to be airplanes!”

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    March 20, 2014 at 8:19 PM

    • I’ve lived all my life in the Deep South. I’ve never met anyone with the exception of a few extraordinarily dumb hick teenagers who would make fun of anybody’s religion in a work setting. I doubt that describes her co-workers.

      I think this story is made up out of whole cloth, or the experience is filtered thru a 1) East Asian 2) female 3) liberal with a very large, unstable chip on her shoulder.

      The Anti-Gnostic

      March 21, 2014 at 9:13 AM

      • That’s not how it was described. You can’t imagine someone laughing at the idea of reincarnation? I can.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2014 at 9:22 AM

      • i too suspect it’s made up, but lion is right. buddhism is quite interesting and the buddha and his saints were quite insightful and in some ways missed by the authors of the bible, but reincarnation is redonkulous. perhaps it’s inessential. perhaps it’s an inheritance from indian religion, but it’s still redonkulous.

        jorge videla

        March 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM

  23. after nelson rockefeller the gop has been EXCLUSIVELY the party of white trash and the PUSHY OBEDIENT STRIVERS who dominate the petit bourgeoisie.

    one of the reasons why the us and uk are so much LESS meritocratic than they used to be is because their elite has largely been taken over by mouthbreathers like thatcher.

    jorge videla

    March 21, 2014 at 12:04 AM

  24. I think you’re looking at some kind of strange microcosm. The vast majority of East Asians I know, barring Koreans, are so irreligious we don’t even care enough to call ourselves atheists. Even talking about it is a waste of time. It’s hard to believe Christianity has anything to do with it. It’s more likely that people simply view the Republican party as the stupid, racist party, and vote for whatever isn’t it.


    March 21, 2014 at 12:23 AM

    • I lived for several years in a majority Asian environment. If ‘racist’ means ‘believes in HBD’ then certainly most of the Asians I knew were racists by that definition. In fact, I’ve heard more mockery of blacks from prole Asians than I ever heard from whites, prole or otherwise.


      March 21, 2014 at 9:55 AM

      • That’s because prole white men spend all weekend watching black athletes, while prole white women are the ones having sex with black men. They’re familiar with each other. The Asians I know immigrated and hung out with proles until they eventually climbed up the socioeconomic ladder. The IQ gap between Asians and blacks is at least 20 points. Prole whites have Hispanic level IQs. That’s pretty close to blacks.


        March 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM

  25. What this demonstrates is that people immigrate for financial reasons and then resent not being the majority. This is like moving to Saudi Arabia and complaining about all the sand.


    March 21, 2014 at 4:10 AM

  26. “One Asian female coworker I knew started crying one day at work because a Christian there was making fun of her Buddhist beliefs.”

    I dunno, something sounds off about this. Possibly several things.


    March 24, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: