Audacious E rightly rebukes sometimes too-far-out-of-the-box thinker Agnostic for his assertion that race doesn’t matter in politics nearly as much as patronage matters.
More recently, Agnostic audaciously wrote:
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity.
There are several points that need addressing, so here it goes.
Agnostic:
California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only.
California’s whites are pretty evenly split politically. Bush won them by 4 points, McCain lost them by 6 points, Romney won them by 8 points, and Trump lost them by 5 points.
The reason California is settling into a deeper and deeper blue hue is revealed not by the figures from the last four presidential elections that are circled in red and blue but by those that are circled in green:
The Original Audacious then displays graphs showing CA’s White population falling in 2004 from 65% to 48% in 2016.
A white California would still be a politically competitive California. A non-white California–just like a non-white anywhere–is not.
Race matters. And it matters more as a country gets more multiracial, aggravating existing human impulses to regroup along racial kin lines against the rising threats from invading and aggrandizing competitor tribes.
Audacious notes that Whites are more ideologically and politically flexible than nonWhites, but that the shift of CA’s Whites to the Far Left has been driven at its source by massive race churn.
That’s not to dismiss changes in the composition of the white population. White Californians were more right-leaning a couple of generations ago because the Mexican migration into the state, the ignoring of proposition 187, and the subsequent immigrant deluge propped up the top, swelled the ranks of the bottom, and pushed out the middle. The non-white bottom welfared their way out of regulations and zoning restrictions and plastic bag taxes while the top gladly accepted these nuisance expenses in return for uncontested dominion over some of the most prized real estate in the hemisphere.
As I’ve been predicting (and which imo unfolding events are proving true), Whites will become less politically flexible as their share of the total US population shrinks. That is, Whites will be pushed into a tribal identity by the forces of nonWhite tribalism, as a survival mechanism.
Audacious also takes Agnostic to task for over-emphasizing the influence of patronage networks in elections.
Agnostic also puts too much emphasis on the shifting of various industries that putatively drive white voting patterns, namely finance, tech, and the media, for Democrats and agriculture, natural resources, and the military for Republicans. A glaring problem with this template for understanding electoral trends is that Vermont, which contains none of the Democrat industries and a couple of the Republican ones, has the most Democrat-voting whites in the country (save for the Imperial Capital itself).
If industry told the whole story, we’d expect Vermont and West Virginia to vote the same way. Hardly anything could be further from the truth. The American Nations–that is, ethnicity–matters more.
A surefire way to make intraWhite ethnicity matter LESS is to flood the country with nonWhites. Watch for future politicians abandoning the framing of their issues in terms that appeal to this or that White voter bloc, and instead to frame issues along more starkly race-based concerns.
Contemporary California is still mostly the country’s future rather than the country’s present. It’s certainly not the country’s past. In beating Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and 440 votes in the Electoral College, Ronald Reagan garnered 56% of the white vote. In losing to Clinton by 2 points in the popular vote and winning by ‘just’ 77 votes in the Electoral College, Trump garnered 58% of the white vote.
Yes, in his first landslide victory, Reagan performed worse among whites than Trump did in his relatively narrow Electoral College win in 2016.
Wow. Says it all.
The shift is virtually entirely attributable to the growth in the Hispanic (and to a lesser extent, Asian) population(s) over that period of time. In 1980, Hispanics and Asians comprised 2% of the electorate. The November before last, they made up 15%. What a difference a generation–and a disastrous 1986 immigration bill–makes!
I recall reading a news item recently which claimed Reagan’s biggest regret was signing off on the 1986 amnesty. The man knew. And as usual Reagan-idolizing NeverTrump cuckservatives are BTFO.
The takeaway is that the Democrat nomination now runs through non-whites, and specifically through blacks. Blacks vote nearly monolithically, not just in general elections but also in primaries. White Democrats will not vote overwhelmingly against the candidate blacks have chosen. If they did, it would signal a drastic change in the American landscape.
This is the civilization-saving question of the era: will leftie Whites continue voting in (by proxy or intentionally) their nonWhite dispossessors out of virtue shrieking spite for BadWhites, or will they begin to align, however tentatively at first, with rightist Whites into an implicitly White voting bloc capable of preserving Heritage America from being overrun and scattered to the winds by the Swarth Swarm?
A race replacement pogrom that occurs sufficiently quickly, I predict, will provoke the drastic change in White voting behavior suggested by AE’s warning.
[crypto-donation-box]
