On Richard Spencer’s defeatist view of the elections

Ron L. writes:

Richard Spencer is correct. We are losing demographically. The Hispanic vote was only eight percent but was two to one Democratic. Only 90 percent of blacks voted Democratic. What will happen in 20 years, when less than one half of the new voters are white?

California is now safely Democratic. In Nevada, Rory Reid lost his gubernatorial bid to a Hispanic Republican. Harry Reid narrowly won (or stole, given the voter fraud with pre-selected electronic ballots) against the gaffe-prone media-shy Angle. In Colorado, Tancredo was crushed. And Senator Bennet beat Buck.

The GOP seriously underperformed in the Northeast. We failed to take any seats in the Northeast aside from New Hampshire. Three seats in Connecticut, one in Maine, two in Massachusetts, and one in Rhode Island were competitive. (I suspect we won CT-4, but it was stolen. Urban voting stations were kept open for two more hours, when they ran out of ballots) Ten seats were competitive in NY state, and we picked up, maybe, four. (We should have picked up NY-23, but the Conservative Party candidate Hoffman stayed in too long, getting six percent on the ballot, even though he dropped out two weeks ago.)

LA replies:

I think this is missing the point. Of course we are losing demographically, since every year the white percentage of the U.S. population declines, and this is the issue which ultimately transcends all others. But immigration and changing demographics were not the issue of this election. Indeed, outside of a small number of race-conscious whites, even the most “conservative” Americans are not remotely ready to think about the racial de-Europeanization of America, let alone oppose it. We must work and hope for the day when such opposition becomes mainstream and effective. But we’re not there yet. For Spencer (and you) to put down the great conservative rejection of the Democrats’ attempt to socialize America, because the racial indicators mean that in the long term the left will win, is to dismiss the good that has actually occurred. Indeed, by Spencer’s thinking, it would have been no worse if the Democrats had won the elections, than if the Republicans had won. Let’s work for the good that is possible at this moment. Of course other goods must also be achieved, if we are to survive as a nation and a people. But to deny the good that has been achieved, because another good has not yet been achieved, is nihilistic and defeatist.

A “glass half-empty” person looks at a glass that is half full and says that it’s half empty. Spencer looks at a glass that is half full and says that it’s completely empty.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2010 01:42 PM | Send