by A. C. Kleinheider

There will indeed be increased friction between blacks and Hispanics in coming years but the contest between the two will be largely an intramural one inside the Democratic Party. A preview was played out in the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral race when blacks cast their lot with James Hahn, a white democrat, rather than embrace an inter-minority alliance by voting for Latino golden boy, Antonio Villaraigosa. This friction, while an interesting and troublesome problem for the Democratic Party, will not benefit the Republican Party and should be little consolation for conservatives.

The inroads Republicans have made with Hispanics are largely exaggerated. Recent Hispanic immigrants tend to reside towards the lower end of the income and education spectrum. To the extent that they vote, these Latinos can be expected to vote their socio-economic strata, which would put them securely in the Democratic camp. The reason George W. Bush managed thirty percent of the Hispanic vote was because these recent Hispanic immigrants either didn’t or couldn’t vote. Bush’s much lauded thirty percent of the vote thus came from the upper echelon of the Hispanic population. These Hispanic Republicans are solidly middle-class and well educated. The new immigrants aren’t. When they do start voting their first ballots aren’t likely to be Republican.

It is, in fact, stupid for Republicans to even attempt to engage in racial interest group politics. The GOP is not going to outbid the Democrats in economic handouts and they cannot possibly prostrate themselves with white guilt anymore than Bill Clinton. Republicans need to take advantage of the current potential majority they have right now. Hispanics are immigrating and breeding at far faster a rate than they can be converted into solid middle-class Republicans. Amnesty bills and hackneyed Espanol sprinkled in stump speeches will not make this go away. For every Hispanic who becomes a Republican, three anchor babies are born to illiterate Mexican immigrants. This is a numbers game Republicans cannot win. The GOP needs to come to grips with the fact that there is a limit to the amount of pandering that can be done before the party starts selling out its principles and alienating the white majority that keeps it in power. Outreach is one thing but at a certain point you just have to let Latinos come to the GOP in their own time. It may take generations. It may not happen at all. Either way, conservatives need to get tough, start vigorously supporting substantial immigration restrictions and concentrate on rapidly assimilating immigrants already here if they want to have any impact on the American political system in the years ahead.

February 2, 2003

by A. C. Kleinheider

I find Colin Powell’s evidence for war unconvincing. I also find it curious that the administration’s voice of reason and moderation is all of a sudden gung-ho for war. While the evidence presented was “new” to the public it couldn’t have been new to him. What changed his mind? Or was he never the voice of reason some had imagined he was? Either way, the evidence Powell presented is thin and certainly doesn’t change the fact that a preemptive war on Iraq is ill-conceived and morally questionable.

There is still no direct evidence linking Saddam to Sept. 11. The political climate in the wake of the WTC attack is being used as a cover for pursuing a policy course that predates, and is unrelated to, the terror attacks of Sept. 11. All the reasoning for war is based on what Saddam might do if he has certain weapons of mass destruction. Many hostile countries have these weapons but they don’t use them because they know what happens if they do. Why is Saddam different? I haven’t heard a good answer. The world has lots of tyrants and we cannot go around picking them off one by one. Nor should we. Bush’s State of Union called for what amounts to a new Wilsonianism that is wholly inconsistent with traditional conservatism. We have no mandate to go around conquering peoples and remaking them in our own image. America is an exceptional place. Every nation can’t be like us and killing a bunch a people isn’t going to change that. America got into the democracy spreading business during the Cold War to counteract and prevent an empire from imposing an alien ideology on native peoples. The problem with Communism was its global and inorganic nature. It was a special case. Dictators, Royal families, and even theocrats -- unsavory as they may be -- usually grow out of some genuine need a nation has at a certain time. Our political culture unfortunately doesn't allow us to entertain the possibility that sometimes tyrants earned their nations and, more importantly, that some nations earned their tyrants.

Even if one wanted to send a message to terrorists and strike a general blow against Militant Islam, why attack Saddam? Saddam, while nominally Muslim, conducts his politics in a secular fashion. He is not a fanatic. In fact, deposing Saddam could destabilize the region and bring fanatics to power. Iraq is a multi-ethnic state. Without Saddam’s iron hand keeping it cohesive, Iraq could become another Yugoslavia. Are we prepared to set off that kind of fiasco and wade through the nation building that comes after?

February 9, 2003

by A. C. Kleinheider

I quarrel with the assertion that homosexuals experience widespread discrimination in modern American society. Surveys put both the income and the educational level achieved by the average homosexual head and shoulders above the national average. The spectacle of a highly educated, moneyed group of people organized around a sexual practice screaming for protection from the government is absurd on its face.

I find it interesting that those in favor of this ordinance accuse critics of being motivated out of fear. “Fear” has nothing to with this debate. Painting critics of this ordinance as callow little ignorants instead of fire-breathing bigots smacks of tactical maneuvering. Proponents know there is a lot of sympathy for the anti-ordinance position so they try to define their opponents in terms that will make them seem weak while making themselves look serenely moderate.

People disagree as to whether homosexuals deserve any special protection in law because they disagree about the nature of homosexuality. At the heart of this conflict is a diametric opposition on first principles that I don’t think can be resolved. To proponents of the ordinance, who believe homosexuality is a natural and immutable characteristic, it seems unfair not to codify protection for it alongside race and gender. However, to opponents, who see homosexuality as an unnatural act or a psychological disorder, it seems patently absurd to bring in politicians and judges to give special protection to an aberrant behavior that should be dealt with by pastors and counselors. We can argue the superficial legalities of the issue all day but at root this issue is cultural.

February 16, 2003

Copyright © 2003 A. C. Kleinheider