The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

Actually, I'll go a step further and say sometimes you can't tell someone is Latino just by looking at them. We have two Hispanic families that live on our street. Well, I should say we have two Hispanic households. They're the same family. Two brothers, who were born in Mexico. They live next door to one another, and even share a common wall since it's a townhouse. I have no reason to suspect either of them are here illegally, as both of them married women born in the US, and they both have kids, all of which are born in the US. The only noteworthy difference between the two brothers is that the younger brother married a US-born Latino woman, and the older brother married a Caucasian.

I bring this up because while the two brothers are obviously Hispanic, there's a big difference in their kids. The younger brother has a 5-year old son and a 3-year old daughter, and given that both he and his wife are Hispanic, it's no surprise that their kids look Hispanic. The older brother also has a 5-year old son, and his wife is expecting their second child. But since his wife isn't Hispanic, his son has blue eyes and blonde hair. If you didn't know his name was Antonio Hernandez, you'd never know he was Hispanic.

There's a couple of other differences as well. Antonio goes by the much more Americanized "Tony" as his name. His couin's name is Giuseppe, and he doesn't go by a nickname. Moreover, everyone in both families are bi-lingual except Tony's mother. And that difference shows up in the kids as well. Tony speaks perfect English and Spanish. Giuseppe and his sister Keran speak perfect Spanish, but neither of them have English language skills nearly as developed as they should be for children their age. They struggle with multi-step instructions, and sometimes, when they want to tell you something, they'll use the Spanish word because they can't think of the English word.

Of course, there's no surprise why this is so. Obviously, since Tony's mother doesn't speak much Spanish, English is the primary language used in their household. Apparently, Spanish is the primary language spoken in Giuseppe's and Keran's household, and it shows in the language skills. (But Tony doesn't appear to struggle at all speaking to Giuseppe or his uncle in Spanish, so I believe he is fully bi-lingual.)

I bring this up because I see how the two children are treated differently by other people in our neighborhood. Most people are unaware that they are first cousins, and are probably not as familiar with where they live and who's kids they are. The only reason I'm aware of it is because I also have a 5-year old son, and when there are three 5-year old boys living within a couple hundred feet of one another, you can bet your ass they are going to play with one another, and that you're going to meet their parents before long.

But the point is they are treated very differently. Tony looks white and speaks perfect English, so there are several people in the neighborhood - especially those who don't know who his father is - who consider him white and I've heard some comment on "what a nice boy he is". Those same people act very suspicously towards Giuseppe, and treat him quite differently. I will further point out that when I mentioned to one of these people that the two were first cousins, her opinion of Tony changed quite abruptly. This is what DR is talking about. You don't have to be openly hostile to a particular group of people to harbor racist attitudes towards them.

Reference above for a case in point.

One other thing I've always suspected but know I know for certain is that racism is a learned behavior. I state this because of my son, Jack, where the term "race" only has meaning if you and one or more other people are trying to get to a certain point the fastest. "Black" and "White" to him are merely colors, but not colors of people. I got a kick out of it, when my mother-in-law refered to one of the children in the neighborhood as "black". Jack corrected her and stated, "He's not black! He's brown!"

Oh, the attitude certainly isn't unique - every time a large immigrant group arrives in the US, there's a wave of fear that they are going to take all of their jobs. As a second generation American, I heard first-hand accounts from my grandparents of this exact attitude towards them when they arrived. While it is true that if you immigrate to the US, the odds of you fully integrating are rather low (unless you arrived as a child), your children and grandchildren usually do.

 

Why is fear of losing available jobs to a new group/type of immigrants racist?

In the bigger picture of the immigration standards of today, I believe the term racism is thrown around a lot and I believe it is often misused/mixed up with "concern for the continuing welfare and style of life we currently hold". We live in different times these days. Is the US still thought of by it's citizens in the same manner as it was at it's founding? What I am getting at is at its founding this was a place of oppurtunity and growth. Not so much these days. We are getting "Full" IMO. I think the recent Recession speaks to this. As more immigrants still try leave their home countries, looking for a better place, which I understand as I would want a better life too, we take on more mouths to feed. Eventually, we will decline and become like the countries they are fleeing from. Where is the line drawn that says no more? Will there be a line drawn?

 

I never said it was. What I was implying is more along these lines: while no one wants to lose their job, I think they would greater animosity to losing their job to someone who recently moved to the country. Sort of like in a "they don't deserve it" type of way. I understand that's not a completely clear way of explaining it. I just get the feeling that a person would rather lose his job to someone who didn't recently immigrate - I think it's human nature to like to assign blame, and if you lose it to an immigrant, it's an easy target.

How ironic. That was the exact same arguement made about 100 years ago, when scores of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants were arriving through Ellis Island every day. The more things change...

 

As if to buttress my argument, right on cue here's the man the majority of white America just voted for, explaining to his donors yesterday why he lost:

Hispanics only voted for Obama to get free stuff. Nice.

 

"Full"? Seriously? According to Wikipedia, the US is ranked 178th out of 242 in population density out of the world's nations, and 76th out of 100 with popultions exceeding 7 million.

Now I realize you might have meant "full" in the sense of available jobs rather than available space, but more people translates to greater demand which translates to more need to produce which translates to more jobs. It's kinda the whole economic growth thingy.

 

No BTA, that wasn't an example of demonization. It was merely an example of Mitt Romney being an ass, and what it is an example of is the larger problem with Republican thinking and approach toward the Hispanic community that most Republicans seem utterly oblivious to.

And sure, he didn't say it was the "only" reason, but that's hardly the point. When did you inherit the mantle of semantics flogger from NOG? Was there a ceremony that I missed?

 

Aldeth,

I find those types of comparisons to hold little substance. 100 years ago industry was starting to boom and there were jobs, there was a ton of open space to build and develop, and resources to be had. There was a need and demand for the labor pouring in. Today's world is just not comparable by any sense.

Do you really think things will change over the next 100 years in a comparable fashion as they did in the last 100 years? Not possible IMO. Our technology boom is peaking or has already peaked. Our ability to improve our ways of life is peaking or has already peaked. You will not see the same amount of change in society as we previously have. We have people living longer, consuming more valuable resources. It is getting harder and harder for modern societies to sustain their current ways of life. Immigration en masse, no matter where it is leading from, is not making life any easier on those already here or for any country experiencing it. I feel for all who want a better life. I am willing to give as well, which my household does, to several organizations that help the needy, both here and abroad. I don't have answers or great alternatives, just fears....

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 33 seconds later... ----------

High Population Density is not a good thing if you can't feed and take care of them all. IMO we have higher standards on what we think is the correct quality of life all should maintain here compared to many "Dense" countries. The need for jobs does not automatically create them. That is theory only. Real life concerns for CEOs and Politicians, like bonuses, ballon packages and company jets somehow get in the way of that.

 

I don't think that was implied at all. The only implication I could see is that hispanics typically make $25-$30,000 and therefore want handouts. And while I stand to be corrected, I'm pretty sure that was DR's and AFI's whole point.

You don’t need to “take care of them all” if they can take care of themselves by getting a job. So as long as they are employable, they have the ability to earn a living. And if they can do that, they spend money, which creates demand for goods and services, which creates more jobs. Again, that’s basic economics in a western society.

Well, many European counties might disagree. But then that depends on how you define “correct quality of life” (and I’m not even sure “correct” is the right word).

I’m not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that the desire of CEO’s and politicians to line their pockets is a reason to stifle immigration?

 

Actually, 100 years ago marks the point when the frontier closed (technically 1913, but close enough), and there was genuine concern by the citizenry that we would in fact "run out of room" with all the people coming in, becaues you could no longer hitch your wagon and get a free plot of land from the government. My statement wasn't merely hyperbolic, it was fact based.

Come on Blades. HTF would I know that, or you know that. If you asked people 100 years ago there was no way anyone could have imagined what we'd have today back then. And given the rate that technology is advancing, I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that the changes over the next 100 will NOT be comparable. I think they will greatly exceed the changes from the past 100 years.

You talk about making comparison with little substance, but at least when you go back 100 years you have a historical record to look at. Asking what the world will be like 100 years from now is purely speculative. And frankly, I don't really care what the world will be like 100 years from now, because me and everyone I know will be dead by then.

How can you KNOW that? The technology boom hasn't seem to have slacked off any to me. So I don't even agree with your central premise. There may indeed be technology and personal comforts available 100 years from now, that are currently unimaginable. Just like people in 1913 couldn't conceive of traveling to the moon, much less the concept of a computer, an iPad, the internet, or any of the innumerable other changes we've had in the past 100 years. It's obviously impossible to prove your statement is wrong without having a crystal ball, but I think it's somewhat naive to be so cocksure in your stance for a date that is so far off. It's hard to specualte what the next 20 years will bring, but you think you can accurately know the progress in the last 100 years will exceed what we'll see in the next 100? Again, HTF can ANYONE know that?

 

Granted, he didn’t specifically mention Hispanics in the sentence where he mentioned $25-$30,000. But then he said “likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus.” If not because of income levels, the why was it a “big plus”? He offers no other explanation as to why it’s a big plus to them, so there are only really two conclusions I can draw – either he thinks Hispanics in general are low income-earners, or he thinks they, moreso than any other group, like free handouts. Either way, he’s not painting a particularly flattering picture of the Hispanic community.

 

My hometowm of Rockford, IL is a great example of how that doesn't always work. We still have a very high unemployment rate. Over the last 40 some years many factories have closed here. There are still a lot of people, but no jobs. Jobs don't just magically appear out of thin air.... bringing more people here isn't the answer. People are only part of the equation and only help if the other pieces also fall into place. In America, the jobs are going overseas and the people are continuing to pile in.

---------- Added 0 hours, 11 minutes and 16 seconds later... ----------

The frontier closed, but tons of resources to still tap. We now do not have those options for newbies. Back then, we still had a ton of room to build towns, neighborhoods, create surbarbias. Now we are growing thick as weeds. Hell, the coastline from DC to Boston is almost a Metropolis as is major portions of Cali.

I am speaking of technology changing to improve the way we build homes and create things to improve our daily lives. 100 years ago, we used basics. Now we use electronics, hydraulics, Nuclear Power and enhanced medicines. We have improved in these areas already in a drastic way, which we need a hell of a lot more resources to maintain it. What other technologies are coming our way that will top them and be more viable to maintain? Our new technologies are going off in other directions like the Collider, Advances in Space,etc... which do nothing for the needs of over population. Hell, they probably contribute to overpopulation.

 

Hello folks.

I'd been too busy working until this month to post here-and even if I wasn't doing something else I was too distracted to comment here.

Some things to add.

1. Yes the recent GOP attitudes are causing a problem with Latinos. GWBush would be unusual amongst many in the GOP today in that he supported comprehensive immigration reform and Romney (as part of getting through a GOP primary) did not. My thinking is that this loss was bad enough that GOP party bosses are going to starting saying to (at least some) candidates they can choose to consider supporting it or getting elected.

2. This was a bigger loss for the GOP than many realize. Arguably the only reason the GOP kept the House is because they rigged elections by drawing lines on a map than Democrats could due to taking statehouses and governorships in 2010. This is called gerrymandering.

Nationally more people voted to have a Democrat represent them in the House of Representatives than a Republican. This means the GOP is both weak and strong-its mandate in the House is questionable. But it also isn't likely to loose the House at the moment. Spirit of the law vs written law type thing.

I think that nonpartisan commissions should handle redistricting in all states (so party loyalists cannot rig things in favor of their party on either side), but for the moment this is the outdated and riggable system many states are stuck with.

(if you don't understand what I'm talking about I suggest trying the neat educational game at this website http://www.redistrictinggame.org/ )

3. As Global Warming gets worse the GOP of today will look worse.

4. As today's younger people become a greater portion of the electorate that will also make life hard for the GOP when they ask candidates why they want to deny equality to their gay friends. There are still many states where GOP candidates can win by being anti-gay but this is a turning point with the 1st openly gay US Senator from my state and other multiple states having referendums with results that don't favor denying gay people more equal treatment.


Each of these has the potential to hurt the GOP over the long run.... but

I think 1 & 2 will be resolved the quickest. Some big names in the GOP are being more vocal about comprehensive immigration reform and the supposedly "liberal" media isn't making much a big deal that the GOP had to cheat to win. Some Democrats may not want to either (to their folly IMO) because many in their/my party would be tempted to do the same if given the chance.

3 & 4 may be hurting the GOP a bit now but I think the worst of that may still be yet to come.

So the GOP took a hit today, is likely to take a bigger one in the farther off future, but will still be around for the medium term future.

 

Redistricting and gerrymandering happen on both sides ... pretty much equally. To imply it's only favoring the GOP is dishonest. To imply the only reason the GOP has any power is due to gerrymandering is likewise dishonest. Believe it or not the message of the Republican party sits just fine with ~49% of the population.

 

Actually it is quite fair to say it is favoring the GOP at the moment.

Perhaps I should have said that Democrats have been just as willing to rig elections via redistricting in the past because they have in many states at various times.

It is, however, quite true that the GOP has done it this time. The GOP benefited from a wave election in 2010. Democrats did in 2006 and 2008 but not 2010. 2010 is important because the legislature elected in that year was responsible for drawing legislative maps after the last census.

BTW The fact that this was done to benefit candidates for the legislature at both the federal and state level isn't unheard of for either party. A point known amongst political folk these days is that Wisconsin's maps were gerrymandered specifically to ensure the GOP would control both parts of the legislature at the state level.

Because of the recalls last year the state GOP here in Wisconsin even broke with tradition (if you want I'll dig up articles with links and provide them) and rushed redistricting because they were afraid they would loose a majority in the state senate and thus the chance to rig things in their favor.

Tradition had it that local governments draw up their maps first and the state uses those maps to draw legislative districts but the fear of loosing their shot at gerrymandering caused the GOP (in charge of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature at the time) to start drawing its own district maps early-which turned the maps local governments had already started making into wasted time and money.

Democrats have gerrymandered as well-even in some states this past year. Its just that the GOP was lucky enough to benefit from a wave election in 2010 so it took control of more state governments (which decide how the maps are made) at a lucky time to do this.

Now one of the reasons I may be harder on republicans for this here in Wisconsin is because in 2010 the Democratic candidate for governor (Tom Barrett) ran on a platform that included a proposal to have an independent commission draw district lines similar to how Iowa does it. The GOP candidate for governor (Scott Walker) did not.

And he signed state legislative maps that had been drawn to favor his party into law in 2011. (1 more reason on the list of why I have doubts about his integrity.)

Now there is a GOP state senator here in Wisconsin who supported the idea of having an independent commission draw district lines. But he is the same one who voted against Walker's union busting efforts earlier in 2011 so we'll see just how much the state GOP goes with his ideas.

Gerrymandering may not be the only thing that helped the GOP keep the House but I will argue that it was one of them-and also helped the GOP in the state legislature in my state.

T2, note I'm not approving of Democrats doing it either. I'm in favor of neither party being able to.

 

... in Wisconsin. You should qualify the statement with what you know. In Illinois (not that far away from you) the exact opposite has happened and districts around Chicago especially were remapped to give more seats to the democrats in both state and federal elections. It worked.

This happens every ten years. Any state where the legislative and executive branches are controlled by one party experiences redistricting (unless it's already as favorable as can be for the party). The "wave election in 2010" was basically a correction from 2008 -- everyone knew it was going to happen and it really wasn't a sweep either. In this election a few states shifted one direction, a few states shifted another direction with the net increase going to the democrats (most likely due to the presidential election).

Gerrymandering played it's normal role but did not really affect the final tally in DC.