Bush set up the whole convention
to reflect media criticism of the Republican Party.
His "compassionate conservatism" is the
same as the "kinder and gentler America"
that his father ran on.
This was such an extreme appeal to the media version
of politics that even the media were taken aback.
They listened to Colin Powell demand that Republicans
follow Clinton. They listened as the open border
of the United States was not criticized at all.
They watched as the Republican platform approved
of the Department of Education, the Department of
Energy, and the liberals' taxpayer-supported propaganda
units, the National Endowment for the Humanities
and Public Broadcasting.
In one area, the media began to sound like the Republican
base used to. In the last three presidential elections,
the Party wrote a very conservative platform. Each
time the conservative base worried that Bush or
Dole would sell out the platform. They did.
This time, a major part of the platform was written
to appease the media. Media commentators wondered
aloud, over and over, whether the Party would betray
THEM. Would Bush give them Powell's speech, all
those minorities and exclusion of conservatives
and conservative rhetoric (in the name of Inclusion,
of course), and then go back to the old rightist
Republicanism that won in 1980, 1988, and 1994?
Bush has sold conservatives out so obviously that
it is no longer a question of his betraying his
base. He isn't even pretending to go with them.
It is the media who feel he may betray them.
|
There was a ritzy meeting of moderate
Republicans down in Florida.
Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut told the group
that the party platform ought to change because
it is offensive to women, teachers, unions, homosexuals,
and immigrants. "I will report to you that
the good news is that the rich people and the business
people still like us," said Rowland. "But
that's about it."
Actually, Republicans get less women and more men.
So they don't lose "women." Women are
in the majority, so if Rowland were right, Republicans
would never win a single election.
The Republicans certainly don't turn off union members.
In a typical election year, Republicans get forty
percent of the union vote in direct defiance of
union leaders.
Presumably, then, what moderates are talking about
is not union PEOPLE, but union MONEY. Unions are
the only institution in America that can take money
by force and use it in politics any way they want
to. Media, moderates and McCain want to keep it
that way.
So we are left with what the media and moderate
line really is: "Republicans can't win if they
don't appeal to women's libbers, teachers, homosexuals
and immigrants." Rowland leaves one out of
the groups in the standard formula: "Minorities."
Rowland's conclusion is even more revealing: "the
rich people and the business people still like us."
This is what liberals, moderates, and respectable
conservatives always say: If you are not a minority,
a homosexual, or an immigrant, you are a rich white
man. This might give you a hint as to why moderates,
who religiously follow this liberal line about voters,
so seldom seem to win.
This moderate-media line is so insane that we need
to repeat it, because no respectable conservative
ever will. They imply, and often state, that anyone
who is not women's libber, homosexual or minority
is a rich white male. I challenge you to listen
closely and not realize that that is what they are
saying!
The media and the moderates completely leave out
the group Reagan and Gingrich actually won with.
These were the Wallace-Reagan Democrats, those who
are increasingly unhappy about where this minority-immigrant-homosexual
line is taking the country.
Yet the same media announced in 1994 that it was
"the angry white males" who took both
Houses of Congress away from the Democrats.
They said that because the line is that an angry
white male is really anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
Anything they don't like always ends up being called
Nazi.
The base of the Republican Party is white. The Democrats
are a coalition of minorities. According to the
line of all moderates and all the media, the latter
is easier to hold together. Meanwhile, back in reality,
as the minorities grow, their competition grows.
Only one thing keeps the Democrats from being a
permanent and shrinking minority, and that is Republican
strategy.
Democratic strategy is to give more and more of
what the "haves" have to the "have
nots." And remember, to them a "have"
is anybody who is not a women's libber, a homosexual,
or a leftist in a
minority group!
But there is a definite limit to how long one can
win elections and buy minorities with white money.
As minorities grow, their competition for "rich
white money" grows, and only so many fleas
can live on one dog.
The decades-long Republicans pursuit of the "Negro
vote" is hopeless. Blacks have spent their
political history in lock step. They will vote as
their leaders tell them, and the liberals own their
leaders outright. But other minorities are not so
uniform.
For example, the same media that says Hispanics
only vote for Democrats also insisted during the
Gonzalez flap that the huge Cuban-American vote
in Florida could be ignored because it was lost
to the Democrats anyway.
The media-moderate argument is that minorities will
never vote for a party whose base is white racially
and Western European culturally. They then argue
that the white population WILL vote for a party
based on a minority coalition. In the meantime,
the white majority gets more Republican when Republicans
go for them, and minorities are learning that competing
for dominance with other minorities causes serious
problems.
The tendency of moderates and the media to use the
word "Hispanic" and the word "immigrant"
interchangeably represents the kind of real-world
problem they have. To liberals, these two groups
are the same.
To Americans with Hispanic names, there is lot of
difference. Very few real American Hispanics want
to trade in their American standard of living for
an open border. But in Mediaspeak, anyone with a
Spanish name who wants to restrict immigration at
all is "a rich white man."
The deciding factor, strange as it seems, may be
the truth: liberal programs don't WORK, rightist
programs WORK. A party which is devoted to that
proposition, rather than to following the polls
and the fads, may be the one that wins in the long
run.
|