An ethnic theory of the Republican victory

Jeff W. writes:

Here are my observations about yesterday’s elections, coming from a person who has watched American politics closely since 1966 and who has also paid attention to tribal and ethnic rivalries in the United States.

White women returned to the side of whites. For years it has been a major project of Democrats (the alliance of leftists, Jews, white elites, blacks, Hispanics, gays, government workers, and others who want to exploit white taxpayers) to peel white women away from white men and add them to their coalition. White women, however, now see clearly that they do not benefit in any way from Obamism and have returned to the side of whites in the form of the Republican party.

Female and Jewish candidates did not do well. Republicans’ great female hopes—Fiorina, Whitman, and Angle—all went down to defeat. In Ohio, U.S. Senate candidate Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, who is Jewish, was pounded by former Congressman Rob Portman by a 57 to 39 percent margin. [LA replies: but Portman sounds like a Jewish name.] John Kasich, Ohio’s Republican candidate for governor, had a much tougher time of it. He won by only two percent while being linked to the Jewish-owned Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers in Democratic TV attack ads. Russell Feingold was thrown out in Wisconsin. It is also interesting about Eric Cantor. From the Washington Examiner: “Mr. Cantor defeated Democrat Rick Waugh by 15 points—a handy win in anyone’s book. But Cantor’s 59 percent of the vote was the lowest among Virginia’s incumbent Republicans as well as the lowest of his career (even in the Democratic wave of 2008, Cantor won win 63 percent of the vote).”

German-Scandinavian people in the upper Midwest reject Obamism. These people also now realize that under Obamism they are nothing but tax targets, and that Obama and Bernanke are also actively trying to vaporize any savings they may have through currency debasement. These people also like clean, honest government and Obama is not delivering that. The GOP had big wins last night all across the upper Midwest.

The GOP did not do well in Massachusetts and Maryland. East Coast states such as Massachusetts and Maryland are highly dependent on government, financial industries, education, and/or medicine to keep their economies afloat. All of these need constant support from Congress. Voters in these states rightly suspect that the GOP may dump them off the gravy train.

My conclusion: Americans are alert to tribal conflict in the U.S., and they understand which side Obama is on. They also believe that the U.S. is in a period of danger and crisis. In such a period, they want as leaders very competent, experienced, honest, level-headed white Christian men whose loyalty to the American people (as opposed to the New York banks) is unquestionable. Those candidates who conformed most closely to that pattern were elected yesterday.

- end of initial entry -

LA to Jeff W.:

Note how you used “white Christian males” instead of “white Christian men.” I changed it.

Jeff W. replies:

Thanks. I have become infected. I need to continue working to disinfect myself.

Joseph C. writes:

Regarding Jeff W’s insight, I think he is largely right on, though I think he overestimates the Jewish factor. Jews are overwhelmingly leftist Democrats, so their losses last night likely reflect party rather than ethnicity, as Democrats were sailing into a strong headwind regardless of their faith/ethnicity. I remember hearing Rob Portman’s middle name was Jones, which suggests that he is not Jewish.

The larger point about how the coastal states are dependent on government is spot on. And that is where the real test for the GOP comes.

When California (and NY and Illinois) are engulfed by French-style riots following threatened cuts in public services, and they come to the feds rattling a tin cup, I would tell them to go to hell. Obama wants to consider the Republicans his enemy—fine. Let the states so in love with the Democrats stew in their own juices, or tax their own citizens to support their “compassion.” If you want to minimize the mess, pull out the stops and watch them circle the drain.

It won’t hurt the GOP congressmen from the rural areas to take that stand. In fact, they were not elected by their people to tax their progeny into penury to bail out spendthrifts who would never vote for them anyway.

An Indian living in the West writes:

I have a question for Jeff W. and for you Larry. I don’t understand American politics all that well so may be you can help me with this.

Generally speaking, the Democrats represent higher taxes and higher government spending. The amount of government waste (as most of your informed readers would know) is astronomical. All that waste comes out of someone’s pocket—usually the hard working, the productive and the well off.

By all measures, Jews are among the richest ethnic groups in America. For the last century, Jews have consistently, and by a margin of 8 to 1, voted for the Democrats. In other words they have voted to be fleeced time after time in election after election by the same set of politicians (or those of their stripe). What is their motive behind this? Do they not mind being ripped off with mindlessly high taxes? Do they not care that government money is thrown into rat holes?

If you add to this the increasing number of groups (including Muslim Americans) who are hostile to Israel, the Jewish support for the Democratic party makes about as much sense as a turkey voting for Christmas not once a year but every month of the year.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the people who vote for lower taxes and less spending (less government spending), usually Republican voters, tend to be white Protestants who, as a group, are nowhere near as wealthy as Jews. They also support staunchly pro-Israel policies even though they are not Jewish.

These two opposite ends of the political and ethnic spectrum make no sense at all to me. How do you explain this?

LA replies:

Conservative and neoconservative Jews obsess about this issue. Norman Podhoretz had a book out earlier this year, Why Are Jews Liberal?”, which was really about why do Jews continue to vote Democratic. Here is Commentary’s symposium about the Podhoretz book. I guess I don’t find the subject that interesting because I think the answer is evident, and it’s been stated a million times. Jews are deeply emotionally attached to the Democratic Party which they associate with goodness, compassion, multi-ethnicity, and sexual freedom, and hostile to the Republican Party which they associate with evil, selfishness, WASPdom, and sexual repression. They don’t mind being taxed heavily because, I guess, they feel they can afford it. Most importantly, they feel it’s right.

From what I read of it, including an article by Podhoretz based on the book, I couldn’t take it seriously, one reason being that Podhoretz dishonestly refuses to acknowledge that his own “conservatism” is very liberal, involving hyper Wilsonianism and a passionate commitment to mass diverse immigration, including that of Muslims, and the de-Europeanization of the U.S.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2010 04:18 PM | Send