Hi, Steve!

Has Steve Sailer been reading this blog? Here are some quotes from his column yesterday that could have been (and, to some extent, were) said here:

And the Democrats are in big trouble heading toward 2012 because their long run strategy of achieving one-party rule by “electing a new people” is, very slowly, provoking its own offsetting nemesis…This racial realignment is taking place at a glacial rate. But the logic is inexorable. If one party gets to win by playing by a set of rules like racial bloc voting, then it’s hard to imagine that the other party will eternally eschew competing by those same rules out of Politically Correct fastidiousness.

…if we prefer a country where citizens listen carefully to long, closely reasoned speeches before making up their minds to one where people vote tribally, well, we should have thought of that before a massive change in the demographic balance was engineered…

…white Republicans are inherently limited at playing this game of “we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends” that minority Democrat politicians such as Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Luis Gutierrez play so blatantly…more fundamentally, white voters don’t like voting merely for the self-interested racial reasons for which Waters’ and Gutierrez’s tax-and-spend constituents happily cast their ballots.

White Republicans don’t want to vote just because it will be good for themselves, their kids, and the people their kids are likely to marry. They wish to have principled reasons for opposing what Waters and Gutierrez want to do to them.

Congressman Waters, for instance, unapologetically wrote quota hiring into the financial reform act because it’s good for blacks. In contrast, white politicians aren’t supposed to write quotas out of bills because they are bad for whites. They are supposed to justify everything by appeal to Kantian universal principles, which is a lot more complicated and likely to break down somewhere.

And white Republicans particularly don’t want to be accused of having racial reasons for their political preferences. Therefore, white Republicans tend, especially since Obama’s election, to espouse complex ideologies explaining why a low tax-low spend system of government is better in principle.

Of course, white Republicans still do get accused—constantly—of racism.

Steve doesn’t spell out the conclusion, but it’s obvious he wants white Republicans to move more quickly towards voting openly in their racial self-interest.


About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Hi, Steve!

  1. rebelliousvanilla says:

    This is exactly why, the Republicans, not the Democrats, are more progressive, which is quite humorous. As long as whites will prefer feeling morally good due to Kantian nonsense, we won’t solve anything. And principles and reasoned debate matter only within a group. Any group that is going into debates with competitors is insane. But at least natural selection deals with it by culling these aberrations out.

  2. The debates are not just within the group of Republicans, they are to persuade Independents, who are substantial. Obviously it is useless for Republicans to debate Democrats in the hope of persuading the Democrats, the point is to show independent observers how bad the Democrats are (of course this demonstration shoud be framed in terms of self-interest rather than abstract principles, but that can be done, Independents actually don’t mind that kind of appeal: since they fancy themselves as non-ideological and pragmatic you can be quite direct about it).

  3. rebelliousvanilla says:

    I was referring to white people, not political parties. Political parties are mere idea pushers. So any sane group wouldn’t care about ideas when competing with other groups or debating with outsiders.

  4. Debates about interests can be carried out between groups (like Republicans and independents) whose interests don’t directly conflict and who can form political alliances. However, it is quite rare to see a literal debate in which each side tries to appeal to the interests of the undecided, those types of appeals are normally carried out via advertising, which makes much more sense because true exchange of ideas is not occurring.

    Of course, interests are not monolithic. A politician may be trying to appeal to one set of voters on social issues, another on economic issues, another on foreign policy issues, and reconciling the positions in such a way as to not lose too many votes requires debating skill and facility with ideas.

    Debates about ideas, on the other hand, are properly carried out only within political groups and not between them; the debates between Democrats and Republicans in American politics, for example, are almost useless (both the legislative “debates” in Congress, and the media-moderated “debates” between candidates during campaigns). The campaign debates are still useful for appealing to Independents, but if it were just R’s and D’s there would be no point.

    The Republicans do know this, of course. Their mistake is not a failure to understand the principle about debating ideas only within groups that share your premises (or at least those of your premises which are relevant to the issue at hand). Rather, their mistake is a more basic and stupid one of assuming that people who nominally agree with their principles actually take them seriously or are capable of changing their political opinions based on logic. You can’t reason someone out of a position he was not reasoned into. (By the way, that saying has been floating around misattributed to several people, but the original is here.) The main exception to this is young people whose views are not fully formed yet, but once someone is mature, and has firmly held positions, it usually takes a major and traumatic event to get them to reconsider them in any serious way.

    Most people are apolitical and don’t even have firmly held positions — obtaining their votes is a messy and demoralizing business which the left is much better at than conservatives are because they don’t mind lying so much. I would much rather people like that didn’t vote at all, and this is why I hate all the public campaigns to encourage people to “do their civic duty” and vote. In my view, if you are ignorant your duty is to stay the heck out and let people who know something thrash it out with each other, your participation would just randomize the process.

  5. rebelliousvanilla says:

    As I said, the Rs and Ds aren’t groups in the sense I was referring to! We aren’t on the same wavelength, so I will drop it.

  6. What, I’m not allowed to make my own points, only respond to yours? 😛 I agree with you about debates between groups defined by non-political criteria such as race, but since the post was about what white Republicans should do, I wanted to explain what kinds of debates they should be having as Republicans, not as white people, since you already covered the racial angle. My last comment wasn’t contradicting you at all, it was making more general points.

  7. Sailer’s new column here is very good, except right at the end.

    He explains very well the alliance of African-American and Hispanic Democrats with Republicans to gerrymander “majority-minority” districts. This is bad for the Democrats, but even so he is against it because

    the VRA’s tendency to foster political segregation isn’t good for, you know, the country….

    In the column that was the original subject of this post, Sailer wanted white Republicans to start thinking more in terms of their interest as white people, as a necessary defensive measure since other groups are playing this identity politics game. I guess he thinks that would be good for the country.

    But what better way to get the Republicans to start thinking of themselves as the party of white people, and white people to start thinking of Democrats as the party of black and Hispanic people, than to fill the Democratic caucus with left-liberal members of minority groups who are so cushioned from electoral challenges that they will also tend to be blatantly corrupt?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s