Thursday, November 29, 2012

Double Trouble

Permit me for a moment to join the chorus of Cassandras predicting doom for the GOP if sociological trends continue...for a whole host of trends are not working in the Republican Party's favor. Namely, demographics and class.  I won't go into the demographic question in this post, except to say that the "bifactional ruling party" has achieved its goals through importing a reliably Leftist demographic, and continues to do so. There is no interest on the racial Marxist or Big Business sets in "solving" the "problem" of foreign migration into the United States. Because for them it's not a problem at all.

Now as to class, well that's not working in the Republican's favor either. Not long ago I posted on 2012 Presidential exit polling data that suggested values (key marker: marriage) and having skin in the game (key marker: property ownership) predict voting behavior.  As Steve Sailer observes, these two variables tend to move together, although values/marriage dominates:
 [T]he influence of marriage and homeownership on voting is hard to disentangle, because a couple’s decisions to wed and to buy a home are often linked.
We can use the Reuters data to show which appears to be a stronger influence on voting Republican...
Source: Sailer
Among whites only, the Marriage Gap is...a massive 16 points when combining the sexes, and 18 points among white women.
Source: Sailer
Conclusion: within these apples-to-apples comparisons, we see that the Marriage Gap appears to be nearly twice as big as the Homeownership Gap.
The problem for Republicans, and conservatives in general, is that both variables are on the decline. Marriage has been famously declining for years, and home ownership is of course a victim of the housing bubble burst, a bubble artificially inflated by central planning pols in an effort to invest racial and ethnic minorities in an "ownership society".  For these politicians, it was more politically correct and frankly easier to entice racial and ethnic minorities to take out home loans and buy, rather than change their destructive marriage-avoidant behavior. To be fair, the former needed only an appeal to human self-interest, the latter had an entire power structure arrayed against it:
[Y]ou’re not supposed to say this in public, but the GOP traditionally gets most of its votes from people who more or less have their acts together, while the Democrats appeal most strongly to the various resentful fringes of society.
The prototypical Romney voter might be the loser’s wife, Ann Romney: married for 43 years so far, with five children and 18 grandchildren.
The prototypical Obama voter? Hard to beat the President’s late mother, Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, impregnated at 17 by a passing African polygamist, briefly and bigamously married to him, then married for a while to an Indonesian. She finally died single and without her peeved son bothering to visit her. (I’m pretty sure this will not happen to Ann Romney.)
The fact that Ann Romney has 23 legitimate descendants seemed to strike many people, especially politicized single women in the MSM, as creepy, if not downright personally insulting. In contrast, they find Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, with her lifetime of foolish, self-centered decisions, an inspiring role model.
How can the more conservative party to argue for conservative behavior when more than two out of five new babies are born bastards—including 29 percent of children born to white women? 
I long for the day when Republicans and conservatives (not necessarily the same sets of people) argue for marriage and stop being distracted by insignificant wedge issues like homogamy.  I'd rather they go great-guns against divorce, that prolific engine of covetous Democrats, control-freak Leftists, and abundant human misery. If latest trends are any indicator, they have their work cut out for them.  It all starts with ideas, with values. Focusing on materialism, thinking that more stuff will turn anti-social behaviors around, like former President Bush and Mr. Rove did, is a fool's errand.

I'll close with another quote from Sailer, suggesting that a systems approach to the marriage question may yield benefits and, unsurprisingly, pounds on the migration nail:
Benjamin Franklin pointed out in the 1750s that cheap land and expensive labor makes marriage and children more affordable. Franklin went on to note that the most obvious policy tool for pushing the supply and demand curves in the direction of affordable family formation is--immigration limitation.
The decline of marriage in America is obviously intertwined with the post-1965 immigration disaster. For one thing, Latinos have an illegitimacy rate of 53 percent. Moreover, the constant pounding down of wages and driving up of housing and education costs makes marriage and children less affordable for prudent Americans (i.e., natural Republicans).
Marriage has become a bad deal for men, so much so that I recommend marriage only to religious men and/or men who want to have children.  Making having children cheaper may go a long way toward shaping anti-natalist attitudes toward a more pro-child stance.


Christina said...

The problem with Republicans is that the establishment GOP are a big crock of liars a shade worse than liberal leaders.

At least we all know Democrats want big government. They make no qualms about it.

But these GOP elitists feel just as entitled to the power trip Big Gov brings them as any Obama Mama does to her Obamaphone. Only they keep claiming they're for small government.

Small government, my ass.

If I can actually manage to get a call into Rush Limbaugh, I want to challenge him on that whole "All Dems are liars" bit with this. And ask him how far left do these hacks need to take the party before he'll actually throw his vocal support behind a third party candidate? Not like the GOP Elites respect him - they tolerate him, because at the end of the day, he still tells us all to vote for the Republican.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"But these GOP elitists feel just as entitled to the power trip Big Gov brings them"

Yup. It's called "compassionate conservatism". A complete abdication of conservative principles in favor of neocon ones, if you ask me.

I think it was for this reason that Romney lost earlier this month. Working class whites stayed home; this when it is clear that the Obama coalition was built on hatred of the working class white guy (and gal, if non-feminist) and the confiscation of the fruits of his labors to give to those who hadn't earned it...out of compassion you see.

El Bastardo said...

In his own words I give you Mr. G.K. Chesterton:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

― G.K. Chesterton

wanderling said...

Mistakes happen, it's human nature, impossible to know and plan for every eventuality, so at least progressives have an excuse.
Failing to fix mistakes and instead maintaining them deliberately is just corruption. It seems Chesterton was sympathetic to progressives and leant more in that direction.

Christina said...

Failing to fix mistakes and instead maintaining them deliberately is just corruption.

This, I actually agree with Wanderling on.

Progressives having an excuse? Not so much. There's enough retrospect ruins to admire showing the folly of progressive notions.

ukFred said...

As the Democrats get more and more confident with their victory in the Presidential election,their behaviour will become less duplicitous and more direct. Witness what has been happening in the UK with the UKIP, a libertarian conservative party, which has now become the third party here, and is sufficiently strong to prevent the Conservatives getting seats. However, Respect, a leftist party led by a former Labour MP is also taking votes from Labour, especially in areas with high muslim immigrant populations. The view here is that there is not a cigarette paper's thickness of difference between Labour and Conservative, with the Conservatives having moved to the left. So folks are now looking at who proposes policies they want rather than voting to keep that other lot out.

Unknown said...


I have a rare opportunity next month to meet David Nixon, who co-produced the movie Fireproof. Many in the Manosphere have expressed concerns about this film so I'd really like to use the opportunity to expose some of the inherent misandry in the film before the Christian audience. I’d be grateful for your suggestions on a few pithy and pertinent questions I could ask.

If you're so inclined, feel free to post them here or email me at

It's too rare an opportunity to miss, so I’d really appreciate your help.

Thanks in advance.

Elusive Wapiti said...


Thanks for the invite and yes, I'd love to tender a question or two.

Would you like for me to advertise it on your behalf as well?

Unknown said...


Brilliant. I was hoping you'd agree. Thanks for the offer to advertise, but it's a closed function so non-invitees won't be able to attend. All the better I think, as the smaller the group the better the opportunity for me to strike up a conversation with Mr Nixon. I look forward to your questions - will check here and at the email addy I posted periodically.


Elspeth @ Breathing Grace said...

EW, have you seen this?

Elusive Wapiti said...

Thanks. Just read the article. Wow.

It's one thing to punk on unmarried baby daddies, it's quite another to do the same with married-yet-estranged ones. Both are wrong, of course, the latter just far worse than the former.

I have to agree with his attorneys on this one...someone's making money on something that smells an awful lot like human trafficking.