Analysis of Secession Talk Gets It All Wrong
The punditry are convinced that secession talk in the US is driven by angry reaction to Obama’s reelection. They have the analysis wrong. Here’s why:
The reaction of the Republican elite (as well as Rand Paul—the only hope for a Republican revitalization) to their loss to Obama is to try to not just double down on the 1986 Reagan amnesty. To see why merely doubling down won’t do that job one need only look at the following sequence:
Year vs Republican Presidential Candidate’s % Hispanic Vote
What happened to cause the precipitous drop between 1984 and 1988?
Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, that’s what.
So obviously, just doing an amnesty again isn’t sufficient. All you’ll do is get unprecedentedly low Hispanic votes for the Republican candidate*. You have to do more for the Hispanic voters than merely offer their coethnics amnesty again. How much more? Well, it appears the more Republicans Hispander, the less of the Hispanic vote the Republicans will get. Therefore, the arithmetic dictates that Republicans will have to offer everything and more to Hispanics in order to get their votes!
With this kind of logic inside the Beltway, its obvious that the floodgates are now open as wide as humanly possible to race replacement in the US—replacement by races that are far more ethnically cohesive as a voting bloc than are (non-Hispanic) whites and as a voting bloc are single minded in support of the Democratic party’s open borders policy that creates an ever greater and more solidified constituency dependent on the central government for protection and provision.
If you want to understand the real reason people are looking at secession in response to Obama’s victory, don’t look at it as an angry response to Obama’s victory. Look at it as an angry response to the Republican elite’s response to the Obama victory.
*Understand that this not only ignores the fact that border enforcement was promised and not delivered as a result of the 1986 amnesty, as well as the fact that the Republican candidate in 1988 had Hispanic grandchildren, but that this is merely the expectation for the next election. For the longer term of what happens, look at California today to see the future Republican prospects there as a result of Hispandering. Of course, this assumes that all we’re concerned about is whether a state votes Republican and that the fiscal, social and economic well-being of the state can be sacrificed, as clearly they were in California.
Post a comment: