Obama’s racial appeal to nonwhite voters, and how it was midwifed by the mainstream conservatives
that tends to support the theory that the reason the Democrats have suddenly switched from Cap and Trade to immigration is that they want to increase nonwhite turnout in the 2010 elections. Politico
has a video
of Obama appealing to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.” There are many comments at the Politico
thread, and I’m told that the predominant view is that Obama’s agenda is racial.
I would add that when Obama in his brief pep talk keeps speaking about the people who “voted for the first time in 2008” and need to vote again in 2010, he is referencing the same phenomenon that David Horowitz joyously celebrated on January 20, 2009—that millions of nonwhites had voted for the first time in the 2008 election, because for the first time there was a candidate with whom they could identify as a nonwhite; and thus, Horowitz continued, these millions of nonwhites had become a part of America for the first time and were making us into “one country”—for the first time. Horowitz expressed more happiness about this wondrous new American unity than anything he has written about in his twenty five years as a conservative journalist. What was it that Lenin said about capitalists selling Communists the rope that the Communists would use to hang them? Today’s leftists could say the same about neocons and mainstream conservatives, who, in the name of race-blindness, have facilitated the admission into the U.S. of tens of millions of race-conscious, race-resentful, lower-ability nonwhites who will vote for a race-socialist America and will denounce the American people as Nazi-like racists for enforcing the country’s basic immigration laws. .
- end of initial entry -
This is very good. Some of the commenters noted, “Well, he’s appealing to whites (young people and women) too.” True, but it’s mostly a brazen call to non-whites.
Already the Arizona immigration law is being painted as a racist law by Hispanics who are calling on the White House to intervene. The inflammatory rhetoric from the Left against Americans who want to preserve our country may be the spark that ignites a full Tea Party revolt. The May 2006 amnesty march by illegals galvanized many Americans (including me) who had been complacently unaware of what was happening to our country. If people were angered then, that will be nothing compared to the firestorm coming now.
Since the mid 20th century, has a U.S. president, speaking to the nation, ever appealed to voters by race? “People of X race and Y race, you’re my guys, vote for my party”?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 27, 2010 01:32 PM | Send
This shows again how the white majority gave up their (mostly vestigial) racial identity to embrace a non-racial concept of American identity, and that this had the effect of opening the doors to nonwhites who began asserting their racial identity. And now the whites are completely befuddled. To use a Jewish word, they’re ferblongid (completely lost and confused, all messed up). On one hand, they are not allowed to think of themselves racially, as they have been trained for several generations to believe that that is morally wicked. So when nonwhites, like Obama, start speaking racially, violating the non-racial rules that the whites have been assiduously following, whites, or rather white conservatives, are disturbed by this. But if they consistently identify and criticize the nonwhites’ racial behavior and point out that the nonwhites are violating the non-racial rules of America and thus are behaving in a manner incompatible with America, such deserved criticism would (in keeping with Auster’s First Law) make the whites themselves seem race-conscious and anti-nonwhite. So the white conservatives never follow the ever-increasing evidence of nonwhite racialism to its logical, race-realist conclusion, namely that the more numbers and power the nonwhites have, the more they will assert themselves in racial terms and attack whites in racial terms. Instead the white conservatives revert to the plea, “This is America, we should not think that race matters.” But the nonwhites see this white appeal to race blindness as the hypocritical gesture by which the majority racial group keeps its power. The upshot is that the more liberal the whites become (like Bush with his open borders policy), the more “racist” and “fascist” the left and the minorities think they are. The more nonwhites are admitted into America, in the name of the idea that race doesn’t matter, the more racist the waning white majority is accused of being. The whites keep getting hung by the rope they sold, and they never see that this is happening.
There are signs that this could change. If the liberal and nonwhite politicians and opinion makers keep condemning the citizens of Arizona as Nazi-like haters for simply enforcing the law and deporting illegal aliens, more and more white conservatives may wake up to the fact that the race-blind America in which they have believed so devotedly and for so long is a dream; and that if they want to keep America from turning into an anti-white country, they are going to have to preserve America as a white country.
Of course, this doesn’t answer the problem of what to do about the white left, which is also anti-white. The logical options are: convert the white liberals from their liberalism (which would be by far the most desirable outcome); subdue them politically; subdue them by force; or divide America into two countries, one liberal, one conservative.