Conservatism has largely withered amongst our Western European brothers. Its roots have dried and rotted, as the Western European peoples have overwhelmingly voted for governments that have drifted ever-further Left and secular. Conservatives are generally hesitant, if not outright hostile, towards radical social changes; the fact that Western Europeans have rapidly embraced progressive liberal social ideals about gender and gender roles, race and ethnicity, sexuality, religion, social welfare and private wealth, et cetera, speaks volumes regarding their rejection of Conservative virtues and values. Yet what are these virtues and values we speak of when Conservatism is mentioned?
Conservatism was largely created by Edmund Burke as a reaction to the French Revolution. He was strongly opposed to the Revolution, and argued instead for a measured approach to social change, and for favoring traditional norms, values, and institutions to untested, radical changes. He preferred the primacy of the Family and the theology of the Church to the modern philosophical thought that largely favored secular rationality and moral abstractions. He argued that human reason is subject to inherited behaviors and perspectives that we are unable to fully comprehend, rendering any “objective” analysis of the world futile and flawed at the root. To Burke, our flawed outlook meant that following tradition was the preferred status of the world, as tradition at least provided us with hundreds of years of experience to draw conclusions from, rather than attempting to reorder the world how we saw fit.
Modern Conservatism is much the same as Burke’s perspective was in the 18th century. The preference for tradition as the primary arbiter of social and cultural norms among Conservatives is a major defining feature of the ideology. This preference for tradition includes a preference for religious doctrine to secular morality in defining behaviors deemed acceptable by society. It also manifests in its adherents as a retardant to social change – many Conservatives are wary of change due to the Law of Unintended Consequences and the “slippery slope” of secular morality. “Progress” in the context of society and politics is not synonymous with “better”, regardless of any positive connotations you might unconsciously associate with the word. Traveling at 100 mph will get you somewhere quickly; but it would be prudent to check the map to ensure you’re going in the right direction first. Beyond this affinity for traditional approaches to encountered problems, private property is considered sacrosanct and the rights of property owners to do what they wish with their property is fiercely defended. Alongside private property ownership is the belief in the preservation of wealth, providing a strong impetus for a hard work ethic and a strong sense of self-reliance. Outside of the realm of the individual, Conservatives tend to favor a power dynamic in which smaller regions govern themselves. This is where the primacy in the American Constitution of States’ rights compared to the role of the Federal government comes from. The rationale here is that smaller regions are better governed due to the leaders being more attuned to the desires of the citizens than in a larger, distant centralized government structure. The self-reliance and individualism found in Conservatives are reflected in their preference for a small government, yet the desire for a small government tends to conflict with the view of a strong military being a necessity. This feature of American Conservatism likely has more to do with maintaining American hegemony rather than being a defining feature of the Conservative ideology.
It is my opinion that Western Europeans were all too eager to outsource responsibility over their own lives by deferring most responsibilities to the state, and traded their ancestral religious roots for a new religion of Liberalism. Naturally, this has lead to societies in which there exists few areas of life that the State does not have a regulatory presence – one does not easily give up power that was previously given, and usually seeks instead to grow that power and influence.
Their story is one that stands in some contrast to ours, and offers us a comparative model for analysis. There are obvious differences between our societies – most European nations are high-trust societies (granted, this is rapidly declining as the great ethnic and cultural replacement washes over the European continent). Most Europeans have also not had the same culture of individualism, personal responsibility, and personal freedom Americans of the past have had, as they have nearly always been subservient to a higher power – be it God(s), a King, a Lord, Nation-State, a foreign occupying force, etc. At least since the nineteenth century and the invention of the nation-state, Europeans have generally valued homogeneous, national communities in order to avoid internecine conflicts of an existential nature. Only over the last 30-40 years have the European elite favored a diverse population, actively importing millions of people of non-European ethnic backgrounds into their countries. While some contend that this was done to combat declining fertility rates in Europe and to bring in a larger labor class for the manufacturing sector that dried up in the 1980’s, others contend that while this was the stated reasoning, the realpolitik reasoning for it was rather different. Those that favor this explanation claim that the European elite supported growing the increasingly non-European ethnic population in order to break social cohesion, tribal instincts, community trust, and to instead transfer support amongst a now divided working class from the Nation to a Supranational ruling body making it easier to rule the region. The policies and aims of the European Union do little to dispel this notion.
Despite these differences, we do have much in common. Over time, the American government has followed the same path as our brothers across the sea, ever-expanding and worming its way into the nooks and crannies of our lives. Those who created the Federal government and its framework were both experienced and far-seeing enough to grant the American peoples specific rights that the Federal government could not easily touch. In addition, and while this has largely been ignored (not to mention legally subverted due to corrupt interpretations of other clauses), the founders also tried to relegate any duties not explicitly granted to the Federal government to the States. This would have resulted in the States being the “great experiments of Democracy”; any state could try whatever policy they saw fit within their state, and the results of those policies could be contrasted against states who chose other paths. If you did not like what the State was doing, there existed plenty others from which to choose. While this has largely been dismantled by the ridiculous interpretation and overuse of the interstate commerce clause, the intent of the Constitution was excellent. Federal overreach killed this Democratic experiment, and once again threatens the democratic nature of America, as well as the entirety of the Conservative movement as a meaningful political bloc. As we have seen the end result of in the Western countries where Conservative parties by American standards are marginalized into obscurity, the American Right will find themselves company there should they not address the threat critical to their very existence: Immigration.
Whether the Neoconservative establishment of the GOP is aware of the existential crisis it is facing and simply chooses to do nothing about it or not is a question worth pursuing, but that is not the focus of this article. Instead, I wish to demonstrate that continued immigration from non-European and Non-Anglosphere countries is the “poison in the wine” of American Conservatism and personal liberty. Conservatism, in the American fashion, is an almost inherently White European ideology; to my knowledge, almost nowhere else in the world will you find similar beliefs about the role of the state in relation to the individual. As the United States becomes an increasingly Non-European ancestral nation (thanks primarily to Ted Kennedy and the Immigration act of 1965), Conservatism in the West will atrophy. The politics of gun rights and free speech, for the sake of having concrete examples, are changing along with the demographics of America. Demographics are destiny, and to ignore them and the ethnic trends in voting patterns are folly.
Over the last twenty years, using Presidential polling data available from Cornell’s Roper Center, we can see a clear and obvious break among the racial groups in voting trends. Let’s look at the graphs of each race one by one and dissect the results:
For the past twenty years, White Americans have drifted slowly to the American Right. In the last election, nearly 60% of White Americans voted for the Republican Party, and over the last 20 years, they’ve moved to the Right by approximately 8 percent. While this is a positive development for the GOP, it isn’t without it’s drawbacks; since the 1965 Immigration Act, Non-Hispanic White Americans have witnessed their demographic share decrease from 90% to ~65% of the total US population. Despite the gains made by the Conservatives in total percent of voting Whites, those gains are mitigated by a decreasing population. White Americans have the largest division between the Right and the Left amongst the major racial voting blocs, with nearly 40% of the White population voting for the Democratic party. Of this 40%, the members of the political left tend to consist of a few different types of people. Some vote Democratic because they are part of a workers’ union or have family members that are a union worker. Many White Americans on the Left are secular, and are still on the lookout for perceived injustices to be corrected due to events in America over the last few hundred years. This makes them place a large emphasis on social topics such as providing funding for women’s health services, protection of abortion privileges, engaging in racial identity politics, fighting for LGBT+ protections at the expense of the right of association of private property owners, etc. They also favor a focus on equality of outcomes, rather than opportunities, and advocate for utilizing the legislature to correct any imbalances in outcomes that arise. These stances tend to be in opposition to mainstream Conservative thought, driving them towards the Democratic party.
Among Black Americans, support for the Democratic Party hasn’t dropped below 83% in over 20 years. Black Americans are ardent supporters of progressive initiatives such as gun control, the limitation of speech, and expanded government social support programs, providing a constant base of support for pushing those topics on the broader electorate. The recent election of Barack Obama marked an all-time high in Black American support for the Democratic Party, and it’s support will most likely not abate anytime soon. The ‘progressive’ issues that many Black Americans support is quite antithesis to Conservative thought, and bridging that gap to bring more Black Americans into the Conservative party will be tough. One such avenue is cracking down on low-skill legal and illegal immigration; a greater low-skill labor pool is a threat to the livelihood of Black American workers, and the Democratic party is openly supportive of near open borders. If the GOP can work to stop this source of competition for Black Americans in the labor market, they might be able to siphon off some of this constant Democratic voting source. As of this article, GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s strong rhetoric on handling immigration seemed to sit well with many Black Americans. His position was giving him approximately 25% of the Black American vote – an impressive feat.
Hispanic Americans have voted consistently Democratic over the last twenty years, ranging from ~55% in 2004 for Kerry to a high of ~73% in 1996 for Clinton. This outcome is not surprising; despite the Republican insistence that Hispanics are “natural conservatives” due to their focus on family and Catholic faith, a quick look at the governments of Central and South America will quickly dispel any notions of Hispanics not supporting large, socialistic governments. According to the Pew Research Center, 75% of Hispanics favor a large government with many social services programs to a smaller government providing fewer services. This is directly contradictory to the Conservative ideology, and marks the central point of contention for reconciliation of Hispanic voters and the GOP. While tied with Asians as the fastest growing ethnic bloc group in America, Hispanic voters will increasingly decide the political fate of the nation, a grim prediction for Conservatism on the national scale and in Presidential politics.
From a low of 31% voting Democratic in 1992 to a high of 73%, Asian Americans have decisively cast their lot in with the Democratic party and there exists no evidence of this changing in the coming years. Asians tend to vote collectively for their ethnic interests. Race and immigration is hypothesized to be the driving force behind why they vote Democrat, as immigration and racial identity is strong among Asian voters – similar to Hispanics. While nearly tied with Hispanics as the fastest growing demographic in America, Asians will continue to grow their influence and give the Democratic party the bulk of the growing Asian voting bloc.
After looking at the data, even only when looking at the last 20 years, it’s easy to see that every non-White ethnic group is either trending towards the Left at various rates or are already overwhelmingly represented there. It would seem that the “Conservative” ideology within the overarching Liberal framework that the United States of America exists within is nearly exclusively an ideology rooted in those of European ancestry, and as that group shrinks as a percentage of the total American population, so does the ability of Conservative parties and individuals to compete on the national scene. Romney received a higher percentage of the White vote than Reagan did, but unlike Reagan, Romney lost. This is the new reality of the GOP, and it came about because the GOP did nothing to stop the demographic diversification of America since 1965.
I see only a handful of options available to the GOP to stay relevant at the national level.
- “Identity politics” is increasingly isolating and irritating the more moderate members of the Democratic party, presenting a source of discontent within the Liberal ranks. Attacking this chink in the Democratic armor will hopefully drive the more moderate voters from the party by the doubling down of the Democratic politicians. As Vox Day has shown, “Social Justice” focused individuals always double down on their claims. It is essential to realize that to the broader electorate, facts aren’t as important as feelings, and humor/shaming is amongst the strongest emotions. By highlighting some of the resultant absurdities that arise from their positions,you can easily mock the politicians’ positions (such as the claim that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, or that Black students advocating “safe spaces” from their White peers has simply brought back segregation). Laugh at their leaders, and hope that the mockery will disillusion them with those who espouse those type of politics.
- Modify the GOP social platform to more align with the mainstream opinions of moderate voters who will realistically vote for either side. Remove the major points of contention for these voters, and hope that the increase in appeal to moderates outweighs the decrease in favor of the traditionally Conservative base. I do not see this as a winning strategy – there will always be some social wedge issue that the Democratic Party will lean upon – but it is a strategy nonetheless.
- Risk alienating the traditional White base (who, unlike other demographics, do not tend to act on their collective ethnic interests) by modifying the mainstream Conservative position on social welfare spending. The Black and Hispanic voting blocs massively favor an increase in government spending on social programs, which is currently the bread-and-butter of the Left. I also do not see this as a winning strategy, as it fundamentally betrays some of the core tenets of Conservatism, and I doubt the Conservative base will take this without revolting against the party entirely.
- Severely restrict the inflow of immigrants from non-European and Non-Anglosphere nations, both legal and illegal, by repealing the Immigration Act of 1965, building a security fence or wall across the southern border, and enforcing E-Verify on employers with massive punitive damages for those found in violation of the law. Repatriation of illegal and formerly legal immigrants must be enforced.
- Encourage the White American base to procreate at increased rates in an attempt to bolster their natural constituency. This can best be done by boosting them economically, as the primary reason young American couples give for not having children is economic worries.
- Attempt to instill conservative views in young children by decentralizing the Education sector and dismantling the Department of Education. The majority of the people in America are Conservative, so this will naturally shift the Education system’s biases towards the local areas’ bias, which results in more areas having a conservative outlook.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that many of these situations will pan out for the GOP. Conservatism as a competing ideology to progressive Liberalism might soon find the need to accept its fate, and to leave behind a history lesson for us all – that demographics is destiny, and to deny them is folly.