In this amazing election the American people voted against globalism and the Washington, New York, and Hollywood establishment with all the drama and suspense of the recent British Brexit vote. Or as one Brit put it, “We do Brexit and the F***ing Americans have to do it bigger.” If it had been a referendum on globalism, free trade and open borders I have no doubt that the numbers would have been much more extreme. Now, with the full measure of political power the Republicans have achieved in this election, you can bet there will be more rollbacks than Walmart ever dreamed, starting with all the executive orders, Obamacare, the Iran giveaway, etc.
Given all the forces arrayed against Trump (Washington elites in both parties, mainstream media at home and abroad, New York and Hollywood media elites, Academia, etc.) one must ask, how the heck did he win? Exit poll data collected by Edison Research for the National Election Pool revealed that Clinton drew the bulk of her support from the motley crew that constitutes the Democratic base: Blacks (88%), Liberals (84%), GLBT community (78%) & Jews (71%); and to a lesser degree, Hispanics (65%) and urban residents (59%).
Trump spoke directly to all the “Forgotten People” and received their support in return. They are Conservatives (81%), Whites without a college degree (67%), and to a lesser extent, small town & rural residents (62%) and, of course, Whites in general (58%). While around the same percentage of Whites voted for Trump (58%) as voted for Romney (59%) and Trump likely won fewer votes among suburban Whites than Romney, the key seems to have been Trump’s ability to break into the upper Midwest—the blue wall, as it has been called — by increasing GOP support in an area that was subjected to major Latino influx in recent years.
The Wall St. Journal presciently had focused on that region about a week before the election. Census data showed that during the past 15 years, counties in the region surrounding where Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois meet had shown “among the fastest influxes of nonwhite residents of anywhere in the U.S.” — largely Latino immigrants starting to move into formerly all-white areas, they found.
Those same counties had shown great support for Trump in the GOP primaries. On election night, that area was where Trump made many of his biggest gains, accounting for his victories in Wisconsin and Iowa and the unexpectedly close result in Minnesota. (David Lauter, “Why did Trump win? Democrats stayed home”)
This suggests that Trump won because of increased concern among Whites about incoming diversity. Election results show that Whites who see diversity increasing tend to vote for candidates of the right, and this is a pattern revealed in recent research
[University of London political scientist] Eric Kaufmann and a colleague, Gareth Harris, found that white Britons who lived in areas that are rapidly diversifying became more likely to vote for the right-wing British National Party. Daniel Hopkins, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, found a similar pattern of ethnic change leading to anti-immigrant politics in the United States.
Immigrant populations in Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee have more than tripled since 1990, noted Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, in an analysis for Vox. Anxiety over those changes may explain why the Republican Party became so much more focused on limiting immigration over that period — and why white voters in those states overwhelmingly support Mr. Trump. (Here; also here and here)
Voters in areas that are rapidly diversifying are more conscious of their White identity, more conscious that their homogeneous White communities are threatened. It’s a textbook case of implicit Whiteness. Trump’s message on immigration resonated strongly with these voters.
Another important part of the story is turnout, particularly among Blacks. Of 231,556,622 eligible voters, 46.9% did not vote. Thus, an anemic turnout for Clinton from the Democratic base plus the overwhelming support of Trump by less educated Whites (read, un-indoctrinated by the Universities) gave him the election.
Don’t expect such an anemic Democratic turnout in 2020. I believe that this is just a temporary reprieve, and that the Republican control of the presidency and both houses of Congress may be as short lived as Obamas’ 2-years unless action is taken now. What specifically? Besides the critical task of effective governing in close cooperation with the Republican majority in both houses of Congress, I suggest two long-term strategies for starters.
1) A New Plan for Diversity on Campus
Most OO readers are already familiar with the deplorable state of campus politics so I will assume knowledge of this situation rather than provide yet another alarming description (If you are not familiar, see TOO’s liberal bias on campus articles like Aesop’s “The University as Hotbed of Anti-White Propaganda: A Student’s Perspective”, or watch “campus craziness” on FNC.
Trump supporters were not tolerated on campus before the election and will be shouted down, harassed and physically intimidated on campus after the election. (Babson College students celebrating Trump’s win by driving through famously politically correct Wellesley College received death threats and demands they be expelled.) In the immediate aftermath of the election students have either retreated further down their safe holes or are out protesting how a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot will be allowed access to the White House in January. Faculty report that students are crying in class, and that they feel alone, scared and exposed. Because they are not accustomed to hearing any views that oppose the One Acceptable View they feel as though they no longer have a safe space anywhere. Meanwhile, the faculty have been busy organizing emergency responses, support groups, cancelling exams, etc.
Bobby Kaufmann, Chairman of the Iowa House Oversight Committee, has announced he is going to open an investigation into the state schools, hoping to learn just how many taxpayer dollars were wasted on these “cry baby” reactions to Trump’s victory over Clinton. Speaking with WHO Radio’s Simon Conway, Kaufman explained his plan to co-sponsor the “Suck It Up, Buttercup” Bill. The proposed legislation would identify the monies spent by state schools on activities deemed to be a waste. The state would then penalize those schools by cutting triple the amount of money wasted from the 2017 budget. Budget cutting by state legislatures is definitely something universities pay attention to.
Whatever the fate of Iowa’s “Suck It Up, Buttercup” Bill, you can expect that universities across the country will continue their indoctrination of the next political generation with renewed vigor. After all, faculty are not elected and only choose to hire future faculty who affirm the One Acceptable View. In the tradition of Orwellian “Double Speak”, this ruthless winnowing of all opposing views is done in the name of diversity.
What can be done about this? I propose a new version of affirmative action to increase diversity of political views on campus and call attention to first amendment rights of students who dare to defy the One Acceptable View. At least 90–95% of existing faculty at major universities across the nation broadcast their progressive agenda at every opportunity. They have not achieved this complete uniformity of political thought by accident. Instead they have ruthlessly hunted out all who oppose them and now are hunting down all who do not actively voice the One Acceptable View. Like Sir Thomas More, conservative faculty are no longer protected by their silence.
There is a 0% probability that the faculty of these institutions will voluntarily change. Consequently, I propose that Republicans begin by withdrawing their financial support, first by eliminating alumni contributions to universities who tolerate no political diversity. Then, by introducing federal controls which restrict funding to universities who do not tolerate any diversity according to the well known coercive tactic of “affirmative action.”
I feel this type of draconian action is needed now to begin to stem the flow of indoctrinated individuals into the responsible positions of journalists, political candidates, civic leaders, etc. that are typically filled by college graduates. These young people are busy building the future and have been given a thorough liberal indoctrination in order to bring to fruition the progressive agenda that completely dominates academia. Correcting this bias is a tall order and one that will require decades to offset the damage done by generations of leftwing activism and conservative neglect of this critical enterprise.
2) Dealing with the Hispanic Vote
Cokie Roberts and other talking heads on Charlie Rose’s liberal think tank stated acerbically that while Trump may have won this time around he has poisoned the future by alienating Hispanics. This is not just idle talk. In 2004 George W. Bush made inroads with Hispanic voters who many Republicans confidently said would form the basis of an enduring conservative majority. But Trump’s performance among Hispanics, at 29 percent of the vote was far below Bush’s 44 percent support in 2004 (but more than Romney’s 27% in 2012).
These results should be read as a warning signal for Republicans in 2020. Republicans cannot allow changing demographics to reduce them to a permanent minority party. Illegal immigrants, if allowed to vote in 2020, would deliver a Democratic victory, since we know that immigrants who have become citizens favored Clinton by a ratio of two to one. Deportation is not as important as making sure that illegals do not receive a path to citizenship, and making sure that illegals are not allowed to vote (unlike the case in California where there is legitimate concern that illegals are voting). Rush Limbaugh estimates as many as 2 million illegals voted.
Illegals who have jobs deemed necessary should be given contracts ensuring they leave after a specified period. Ending birthright citizenship, another of Trump’s proposals, would also help keep down Latino numbers. And more Latinos who are citizens may approve Trump’s policies if they see that Trump really is able to improve labor market conditions by deporting illegals and increasing manufacturing jobs.
Given that only 58% of Whites voted for Trump (again, slightly less than for Romney), there is also room for much improvement in that category. Trump will be able to shore up his numbers if his policies are seen as benefiting suburban, college-educated Whites and White women and if he can keep the support of his White working class base.
Many White suburbanites, after all, moved there partly to escape diversity, and once the pall of political correctness begins to lift, they may see that their best interests lie with a vibrant White majority willing and able to defend its interests.