The case for Obama: Why four more years may be less disastrous than unrestrained GOP rule

Shortly after Mitt Romney locked up the GOP nomination, tried-and-true political axioms fell right into place. With the state primaries over and the August convention looming, Romney’s presidential campaign moved Left, a common window-dressing tactic intended to appeal to “moderate” and independent voters.

GOP insiders, primarily advocates of the “Big Tent” Republican Party, believe that this superficial move — intended to capture the political “center” — is a successful tactic that will pay off in November. The attempt is to peel off disaffected independent voters, who were a key voting bloc for Obama in 2008.

So where does the Romney campaign focus their attention? Latino activists, the NAACP, and Israel! Three well-organized ethnic lobbies and key constituencies that form the core of the Democrat’s base. As soon as any Republican candidate secures the nomination, one of the first priorities is to visit Tel Aiv or Jerusalem and placate the neoconservatives and organized Zionist groups. Romney is reportedly planning to host a fundraiser and charge “$60,000 or more per plate” in a scheduled visit to Israel later in July. Right on schedule!

Republicans never tire of trying to out democratize the Democrats. The ruling elites in the GOP establishment continue to take for granted their core constituency: Middle American Whites. As a potential voting bloc, White voters could make a substantial difference in this year’s election. However, the Romney campaign, much like other Republican presidential campaigns, assumes that this bloc of conservative White voters will remain loyal to a political party at odds with their own group interests.

Considering the long-range implications of America’s vanishing White population, will White voters continue to blindly support politicians who favor destructive policies, which threaten their long-term posterity?

In 1968 and 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace ran insurgent campaigns to appeal to middle class White voters across party lines in the attempt to awaken the “silent majority” and mobilize White voter frustrations over forced busing, crime, domestic turmoil, and the economy. As national conditions deteriorate, conservative White voters, who identify with the Tea Party, could become politically restless and galvanize their group strength into a political force. A viable political movement could seize on these frustrations and, in the short term, create problems for Romney and, in the long term, create greater problems for the GOP. As our nation slides further into the multicultural dystopia, Republicans seem determined to pour gas on a potentially volatile situation.

While campaigning for the GOP nomination, Romney sounded tough on immigration. He opposed the DREAM Act, favored tougher border enforcement, and strongly opposed illegal immigration — all of which was red meat to GOP grassroots activists. Shortly after becoming the GOP’s presidential candidate, Romney posthaste started appealing to ethnic Latino activists, essentially reassuring the nation’s largest ethnic minority that he will raise their standard of living, “strengthen” legal immigration, and ensure that “securing our borders” is a “fair” process. In other words, a Romney Administration is nothing Latinos should fear.

Speaking before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials  (NALEO) in June, Romney promised, “I will prioritize measures that strengthen legal immigration and make it easier. And I will address the problem of illegal immigration in a civil but resolute manner.” He went on to note, “We can find common ground here, and we must. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to ensure that our country remains a land of opportunity — both for those who were born here and for those who share our values, respect our laws, and want to come to our shores.”

It isn’t a question of who is coming here. Nor is it an issue if swelling numbers of immigrants fail to assimilate and instead annihilate local communities.

No. For Romney it is a matter of process — finding “common ground” in the “land of opportunity.”

Sam Francis’s description of the GOP as the Stupid Party and the Democrat Party as the Evil Party has morphed into the Stupid Evil Party versus the Evil Party. The Democrats understand their own constituencies and interests, namely the welfare of ethnic minority voters  and government union workers. Placating these crucial voting blocs is the Democrats’ modus operandi.

The problem with the Republican Party leadership is that the GOP establishment senselessly feels compelled to likewise co-opt the interests of minority voters — the Democrats’ core constituency — with programs that are advertised as bigger, better, more efficiently run initiatives. Even worse, this political direction will undermine the wellbeing of its own natural base: Middle American Whites.

More recently Romney addressed the NAACP and pledged that “if you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.” Romney, awkwardly trying to appease those in attendance, was booed for saying he would eliminate “nonessential, expensive programs,” such as Obamacare. Under the guise of “free market” rhetoric, he tried to appeal to this staunchly Democrat audience with promises to end the high unemployment rate among Blacks.

Such reforms will end up as a mix of private and public sector schemes, which by design will be another form of welfare. “Empowerment programs” are a good example of one step forward and three back with the GOP. Welfare is bad; so let’s co-subsidize welfare recipients who get a job—and therefore create greater inefficiencies in the workplace by positioning incompetent and unqualified applicants into the cogs of local economies. Instilling “values” of hard work, thrift, and punctuality is as futile as promoting “educational” reforms — quintessential egalitarian fallacies that every individual is equally capable of becoming pioneers of science, engineering, and medicine. What’s needed? Empowerment!

Ever since the Reagan years, Republicans typically campaign on one set of policies — appealing to Middle Americans — and govern with another. Take, for example, GOP opposition to the Department of Education. Despite all the rhetoric of dismantling this monstrosity, the Department not only still exists, it is larger and more expansive than ever, thanks in part to Presidents Bush I and Bush II (like father, like son). What’s the point of HUD if it isn’t to keep the numbers up (elevate Blacks to the upper echelons of the federal workforce when they would otherwise would be in service sector jobs)? Republicans should be leading the effort to close down these wasteful, inefficient bureaucracies and torpedo legislation that creates more of the same.

Recent political developments — immigration trends (the news that just as many Mexicans have left rather than entered the U.S.); the Supreme Court’s decision in SB1070, which hollowed out Arizona’s attempt to halt, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens; the peculiar ruling to uphold the constitutionality of the federally mandated “Affordable” Healthcare Act; raging egalitarianism of spineless conservatives, such as Rich Lowry, who purged John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg from National Review; and the endless saga of Trayvon — foretell either four more years of the status quo or a hollow “conservative” victory, which will usher in not only Republican rule but political disasters potentially far worse than four more years of the Obama Administration.

What will happen, in all likelihood, if the Republicans take control in November (securing the White House and both houses of Congress)? The GOP will manage to co-opt the opposition and achieve “key victories,” which grassroots conservative opposition—in large measure Tea Party pressure—has largely prevented Obama from accomplishing. Will Tea Party opposition continue to be politically effective in holding a Romney administration accountable when straying from principle as much as their effectiveness during Obama’s first term?

Consider the DREAM Act. Romney, with assistance from Florida’s junior Senator Marco Rubio, will quite likely introduce a modified version of the DREAM Act in Congress. Obama failed to get the DREAM Act through Congress largely because of organized grassroots opposition from the Right. Moreover, Romney will quite likely push for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Rest assured it will be Son of Bush! When all is said and done, any “modified” DREAM Act will simply be nothing less than one more sugarcoated amnesty!

Another consideration is that any reforms or programs under a Romney Administration will be labeled “conservative” by the Mainstream Media. What’s worse is that the conservative establishment will in all likelihood accept these initiatives even if it emboldens the federal bureaucracy and jeopardizes the long-term wellbeing of the nation.

“Conservatives” who support Romney will ultimately argue that he is far from perfect, but certainly a preferred alternative to Obama. The economy is on the rocks…it needs reviving…Romney’s policies can turn it around. However, this is typical “conservative” (i.e., stupid) thinking, which reflects crass consumerism and Wall Street-driven materialism.

Maybe what we really need is four more years of austerity under Obama: further economic stagnation, dismal job growth, and further incentives for more Latinos to self deport en masse. An economic revival will attract more Mexican day laborers, invite another illegal-alien invasion, and therefore create an artificial need to “assimilate” these immigrants and their children under yet another amnesty. The process will never end unless the majority of Whites channel their political energy into a Tea Party-style uprising that unequivocally speaks out for their own group interests.

Who benefits from the status quo (with Whites politically neutralized)? Organized interest groups: mega-conglomerates, ethnic lobbies, and foreign entities! Economic growth is the engine that is fueling our immigration nightmare and demographically altering our nation.

The laws of unintended consequences will inevitably work against Democrat rule. It is a virtual certainty that a President as a known quantity, even as ideologically loathsome as Obama, is potentially less dangerous and reckless than the unknown alternative. As the saying goes, “better to take one’s chances with the devil you know, than the one you don’t know.” A coalition of interests that is too diverse will fracture and eventually become an ungovernable herd of competing cats. We’re seeing this play itself out on the national political scene with “divided government.” The lack of trust that Robert Putnam discovered in his studies of highly diverse societies is now rampant in our society.

There is much truth to the notion that the two political parties, representing very different peoples, interests, and constituencies, are pulling the nation in different directions. American politics is becoming ever more racialized—organized along racial fault lines where 90% of the Republican voters are White, and landslide percentages of non-Whites vote Democrat. It is also true that the rationales underlying these differences are just as divergent. One party firmly and openly represents the ethnic interests of its base (Evil Party), while the other one implicitly represents the interests of its core constituents (Evil Stupid Party) but is equally quick to sacrifice such interests for political expediency.

The absolute best outcome for the next four years is total political gridlock. The best way to achieve this is divided government. Let Obama have the White House, let the Tea Party gather further momentum as an opposing political force, and let’s hope gridlock prevents the governing elites from taking the country over the edge of the cliff. The so-called conservative justices on the Supreme Court will have to stick it out another four years.

Those of us on the Alternative Right, who regularly part company with “conservatives,” should follow Lord Salisbury’s dictum: “Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible.” This is the best we can hope for — gum things up so that both parties are ineffective at “accomplishing” anything, knowing that whatever is achieved will be detrimental for our national survival.

 Cooper Sterling [email him] is a freelance writer in the Washington, D.C. area.


331 replies

Comments are closed.