Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Is the GOP the Party of Mediocrity?
Not long ago, Mitt Romney said something about 47% of Americans being predisposed to voting for Obama since the Democratic Party is the party of big government and dependency. The assumption is most of the 47% are people of low talent, low intelligent, and low energy who simply cannot do much on their own; there are many such people in the U.S. and little can be done about them.
If this were true, then the counter-assumption would be that the GOP is the party of success and excellence. Thus, if many low-IQ blacks, incompetent non-white Hispanics, and members of the 'white trash' are naturally inclined to go with the Democratic Party, then it should be safe to assume, at least according to Romneyism, that groups known for their success, excellence, and talent will go with the GOP. But consider the five most successful groups in America: Jews, elite Wasps, East Asians, Asian-Indians, and gays. Are they going with the Democrats or with the Republicans? 85% to 90% of Jews are liberals; though 20% voted for McCain and 25% vow to vote for Romney, many so-called 'neocons' are really liberal moderates who support the GOP only for Zionist and pro-Wall-Street reasons. Asian numbers are increasing fast, and Asians are vastly over-represented in elite colleges and generally out-earn most other ethnic/racial groups, but 60% voted for Obama--the percentage is surely higher among young well-educated Asians--and possibly more will vote for Obama in 2012. And 75% of gays are Democratic.
So, Romney's point about the 47% is only half right. Yes, it's true that a lot of incompetents and dependents vote Democratic. But it's also true that the most successful and more energized groups in America are also heavily Democratic. And since Jews pretty much control the academia and media--that shape the views and values of most white Americans--, many successful whites have also come to identify with the Democratic Party. (Democratic-ization of educated whites may also be the product of the New Media. In Old Media that favored 'objectivity', news personalities on TV mostly kept their liberalism under wraps and tried to treat all sides fairly. Ted Koppel was a perfect example. Even when people he vehemently disagreed with appeared on Nightline, he treated them fairly and with respect--at least to the best of his ability. Thus, news media in the past had been less judgmental, sending a message that you could be conservative and still be respectable figure in the mainstream spotlight. But with the rise of open politicking in the news--Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and with shows like Jon Stewart--, people with 'wrong views' are openly vilified and constantly tarred-and-feathered on the air as 'racists' or 'homophobes'. While conservatives may have Fox--the least respected news channel in the eyes of educated people--, most news channels and just about all else on TV is liberal or pro-Democratic. With all those liberals openly and brazenly shaming conservatives who, for example, oppose 'gay marriage', it's tougher to be a conservative and remain respectable. Since people are social creatures and want to be liked--the rule of behaviorism--, most educated people will cower to the powers that be that decide what is 'nice'.But since no one wants to feel like a coward, those who go along with political correctness are praised by the powers-that-be as having 'made a courageous choice'. In other words, the trick is to bully people into conforming and then hype the conforming as a show of individual courage. Liberals probably learned this trick from Christians who shunned and persecuted those who didn't accept Jesus but then profusely praised the bullied convert as having made the right choice--as if he really had a choice.)
So, the problem of the GOP isn't merely quantity--the rising numbers of blacks and browns that make up the American electorate--but quality, i.e. the most successful, intelligent, and talented people(s) in America are going with the Democrats. So, GOP is being squeezed from top and bottom. It's not 53% of winners vs 47% of losers, but 40% of dwindling number of white conservatives being squeezed by successful Democrats from the top and by unsuccessful Democrats from the bottom.
Now, libertarian Republicans might blame the GOP's failure in capturing the successful--the Jews, gays, Asians, etc.--due to GOP's fatal alliance with Southern Redneck dummies who cling to their guns and Bibles. After all, what smart person would want to belong to a Party of George W. Bush and Bob Jones University that preaches Creationism? But are libertarians correct in their political assessment? If the GOP were to go fully materialist and libertarian, would it attract a whole lot of smart people? Would the promise of lower taxes and more 'free markets' attract the successful educated classes?
Not so fast. Man doesn't live on bread alone. Kids headed to elite colleges wanna be (or see themselves as) not only materially successful but morally/intellectually advanced. It just so happens that libertarianism sounds too selfish, crass, and vain to a lot of educated people. Successful people may be vain and crass, but they prefer to see themselves as something other.
Even educated secular people need to be won over by 'spiritualist' means, and libertarianism--either in the Paulian or Randian form--doesn't appeal to most highly educated people.
One of the things they don't like about libertarianism is its brazen honesty of power and success. While most successful people do primarily care about power and success(and privilege), they want to believe that they're living for 'higher values' such as 'social progress' or 'social justice'.
Also, though libertarianism argues that free markets and individual liberties will take care of social problems(at least with greater efficiency than other -isms), most 'good people' want to believe in having an ACTIVE role in improving the world. Libertarianism says, 'If you take care of yourself, then society will take care of itself.' Such indirect solving of problems may work or may not work, but 'good people' want to believe that they are actively and consciously engaged in bettering the world.
So, what is the future of the GOP when it has lost not only most of the lower 47% but most of the elite 15%? Does that mean the GOP will be a party of mediocrity?
One thing though... the alliance of the well-educated elites and unwell-educated lower classes is possibly only because of the wide buffer provided by the white middle class and working class. If that buffer didn't exist and if America were made up only of elite liberals(of Jews, Asians, upper wasps, gays, etc) and the unwashed masses who want free everything as 'rights' and entitlements' from the government, the whole system would collapse overnight. So, ironically, it's the GOP white middle that unwittingly enables the alliance of the top and bottom of society. But it gets squeezed just the same.