Friday, November 16, 2012

Hispanics and the GOP

Over the past week or so, there's been lots of soul-searching among conservatives, from our homey little blog all the way up to National Review and other outlets, about how to create a working coalition, and in particular, how to get Hispanics to join it. Obviously, the party's stance on illegal immigration is a part of that discussion. But I think our problems with Hispanics go deeper than that.

Now, it's probably obvious by this point that I'm not a fan of offering amnesty or letting the whole immigration issue slide. I never have been, and I don't see that changing. Some would say that's because I'm a misanthropic bitter-ender who hasn't been taking his meds since Election Day.* I do have actual reasons, though.

I'm no expert on this (not that that ever stops me), but I've frequently wondered whether part of the problem in how we approach Hispanics is our tendency to treat them as one homogenous group--which of course doesn't conform to reality. Some Latinos have been here longer than others; they are of varying income levels; maybe most importantly, they have different nationalities. Mexicans are not Cubans are not Puerto Ricans are not Hondurans. These differences may erode a great deal once all these groups arrive here, but certainly those who identify as, say, Cuban-Americans won't necessarily look at immigration issues the same way as those who identify as Mexican-Americans.

I bring this up because of my broader point: I also wonder sometimes if, when we talk about amnesty and related flashpoints, we're going on the assumption that Hispanics are a naturally conservative group, and would be significantly more loyal to the GOP if not for how we approach immigration. It's something to consider, but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that's not exactly the case. (Besides which, if the immigration debate was driving Hispanic voting patterns, why would they have gone so strongly for Obama this time? In 2008 I could have seen that, in the aftermath of the DC amnesty bill, or in 2010 when the Arizona legislation was all up in the air, but it's been eclipsed by other issues--i.e. the economy--for well over a year now, and we know what a short-term memory voters of all races have. But I digress.)

Actually, from the GOP's point of view, a lot of data coming from Hispanics is fairly alarming. Last year, a poll of California Latinos asked what parts of the Republican platform they objected to. The number who said immigration policies were the big thing? Seven percent. A whopping 29 percent said the deal-breaker for them was the economic platform, because "Republicans don't represent the average person," Republicans only care about the rich, blah blah blah--the same mindless drivel you hear from people of all backgrounds. Now granted, this is California; unfortunately, the Golden State tends to set new national trends. For proof of that, we have a recent survey from the pollsters at Pew Research, which found that among the general U.S. population, 48 percent prefer a smaller government with fewer services, with 41 percent wanting the opposite. Not a bad split. Among Hispanics, however, that figure is 75 percent in favor of bigger government with more services, and only 19 percent against. One Latino businessman explained it this way: "What Republicans mean by 'family values' and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things...We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping other people." Well, that's promising.

And despite being overwhelmingly Catholic and probably more family-oriented, Hispanics don't appear to be that socially conservative, either. Another Pew survey found that this year, the number of Latinos supporting gay marriage rose to 52 percent, with only 34 percent now opposing it. Returning to the Left Coast, Hispanics as a group favored the infamous Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor over the Republican candidate--who himself happened to be Hispanic. Make of all this what you will, but clearly, dropping opposition to illegal immigration and broadcasting our conventions on Telemundo isn't going to help bring over this group.

So is this a signal that we should all slit our wrists now and get it over with? Well, no. Of course, there are things the GOP can do to try and win over Hispanics, many of which have been discussed here before. We probably don't need to throw a fit over bilingualism, and should also make sure to scrap the racial stereotypes. For example, I decided not to put up a picture of Speedy Gonzalez with this post, because Andrew would have yelled at me that would be divisive and wrong. But I see these as Band-Aids. Deeper solutions are needed, solutions similar to what we need to do to gain traction with the black community. For example, there's education. In many areas (southern California, etc.), the high-school graduation rate for Hispanics is about as bad as it is for inner-city majority-black neighborhoods. Promoting vouchers, charter schools, and other paths to self-improvement would show that the GOP is serious about increasing the quality of life for minorities.

Also, there's this glimmer of hope from the Pew survey cited earlier. Although that 75-19 split on the government question is gruesome, it should be noted that first-generation Hispanics are most supportive, with an 81-12 split. That falls to 72-22 in the second generation and only 58-36 for the third generation and afterwards. This suggests Latinos do come to support small government and free enterprise the more time passes since arrival, which is grounds for optimism. But it also means further illegal immigration has to be cracked down on before we can start to crawl our way out of this pit. We need a strategy and a concerted effort to work on all this, preferably before the country blows up in our faces.

*(Which of course is not true. I stopped taking my meds back around Halloween. It's not a good party without some groovy hallucinations.)


Anthony said...

T-Rav said:

(Besides which, if the immigration debate was driving Hispanic voting patterns, why would they have gone so strongly for Obama this time? In 2008 I could have seen that, in the aftermath of the DC amnesty bill, or in 2010 when the Arizona legislation was all up in the air, but it's been eclipsed by other issues--i.e. the economy--for well over a year now, and we know what a short-term memory voters of all races have. But I digress.)
In the primaries Romney attacked Perry for being too easy on illegals. Romney stated he would veto the sort of (local, of course) Dream Act signed by Perry, induce illegals to self-deport and that he opposed Perry's giving of in-state tuition rates to kids of illegals who had lived in the US for at least three years and graduated from Texas high schools.

Also, there is the small matter of Obama's executive order (which halted deportations of people who came to the US as minors and didn't have criminal records, had graduated high school, were serving in the military, etc).

Its worth keeping in mind that Romney's hard line on illegal immigrants didn't merely cost him among hispanics, but also asians (who in recent years have composed the majority of new immigrants).


For a little perspective, consider the votes of another minority -- Asians. Romney won among all voters making more than $100,000 a year by a margin of 54-44. Asian-Americans happen to be the highest-earning group in the U.S., out-earning whites, and they generally place enormous emphasis on family. A perfect fit for Republicans, no?

No. Asians voted for Obama by 73-26; they were more Democratic than Hispanics.
Given that Asians are the richest, most successful group out there with the lowest rate of divorce, when Republicans can't win them, there is a serious problem.

Anthony said...

All that being said, I agree that Republicans' problems with hispanics go deeper than mere immigration policy.

The Republican party needs to do a better job of explaining how conservatism as a philosophy benefits everyone and how conservative policies make everyone's lives better (stressing policies like school choice and suchlike that aid upward mobility).

Patriot said...

What is needed is a repub spokesperson (notice the gender neutral language?!) to be the new face of the party. Get rid of the old white guys as the face. Look at how Palin presents the conservative pov. That is job #1.

Second point is a grassroots effort by Rubio, Cruz etc., to go on spanish speaking TV (takes in all countries not just Mexico) and explain the conservative approach. Use simple, common sense examples to show how a gov't that gives you things can take them away just as easily.

With that said, I really don't think there is any surefire way to get the approach of people who see gov't as an entity handing out free stuff. Conservatism will never win that battle. Think of PJ O'Rourkes saying....."Dems are Santa Claus, Repubs are your father" One will give you gists, the other will say no, you can't have that. Very few humans will turn down free stuff. And we will never explain to them how nothing is free. All they've seen in their lifetime is a never ending supply of free goodies from our gov't. "It's a force for good!"

I despair that the only solution to this is revolution, like back in the 1700's. We will never win the current battle for society and culture with the playing field set up the way it is. (Damn I need another cup of coffee this morning!)

T-Rav said...

Anthony, I would be willing to accept that as an explanation, if it had ever really come up again in the GOP talking points. But it was never a part of Romney's campaign pitch--"Vote for me and I'll send all those illegals back where they came from!" And of all the attacks Democrats ran on him, this was maybe in the Top 50. In the firestorm raised by the "47 percent," opposing the bailout and War on Women!!!!, this never really got much exposure. Besides which, Obama was bragging at one point about how many illegals he'd had deported, so two could have played that game.

On the matter of the Asian-American vote, I'm well aware of that and it is as much of a problem as you indicate. But since they're still maybe 2-3 percent of the electorate and Hispanics 10 percent and growing, the latter may require more immediate attention.

T-Rav said...

Also, one thing I didn't include for space reasons, as far as talking up conservatism as a philosophy, would be to show how the welfare state so many minorities support is gradually ruining their lives, both socially and fiscally. It's one of the best-kept secrets that crime and the disintegration of the family among blacks accelerated after the programs of the Great Society came into being; a similar argument could easily be made for Hispanics.

Anthony said...

T-Rav said...

Anthony, I would be willing to accept that as an explanation, if it had ever really come up again in the GOP talking points. But it was never a part of Romney's campaign pitch--"Vote for me and I'll send all those illegals back where they came from!" And of all the attacks Democrats ran on him, this was maybe in the Top 50.
My wife is a Honduran Garifuna (met her when I was working in Guatemala) so I inadvertently watch quite a bit of Spanish language tv and Romney's comments got a lot of play there (both in attack ads and just general discussion).

You're right about Obama's deportations (you also could have mentioned the fact he failed to even attempt comprehensive immigration reform back when the Dems had a supermajority) but in a two man race, you just have to beat the other guy.

rlaWTX said...

Entirely OT (haven't even read T-Rav's article yet):
Since it's made the national news, y'all may have heard about this, but prayers are needed.

Tennessee Jed said...

nice article, Rav. I don't know the answer, but I think a big part of it is that most people generally vote their pocket books. I haven't determined how Hispanics fall into the overall economic strata, but would guess many (at least a higher % than whites) are lower income or out of work. Anthony is right about communicating why free market economics and fiscal conservative is better in the long run, but as a group, a lot of these folks are very susceptible to granting of entitlements from school, to medicine, to welfare, to unemployment benefits, to Obama phones and so on. Lest we forget, people kept re-electing FDR even after he continued to enact policies that postponed and lessened the impact of economic recovery during the great depression.

T-Rav said...

Shhh! Patriot, don't be reinforcing my pessimism!

Having Rubio, Cruz, Martinez, and others making a direct pitch to the Latin-American community would help. Like you, though, I worry that it's really about just wanting free stuff, like everyone else.

As far as who we've got for the public face (putting up Palin and others), I don't have much hopes playing that game. The more we put up women and minorities, the more Dems will just decry how these people don't understand they're working for a party hostile to their interests, etc. The root problem there is the extent to which liberals have managed to split the population into interest/identity groups and play them off against each other. If you can't provide all the free stuff one group wants, blame it on the other group's intransigence, and so on.

So yes, it's a grim prospect, though not, as I indicated, without some hope. Or at least, that's what I'm telling myself.

T-Rav said...

rla, here's your link: LINK

T-Rav said...

Anthony, I'll defer to your information on that point. I'm not saying that immigration doesn't matter at all to Hispanics; clearly it does, especially if/when it takes on tones of "defend white America!" What I am saying is it's probably not the thing driving their voting decisions; therefore, we shouldn't treat amnesty or related proposals as a silver bullet.

A two-man race? I think you forget the presence of the great and powerful Gary Johnson, sir! :-/

AndrewPrice said...

Hey, I thought the image was Speedy Gonzalez? Now I'm disappointed. :(

Anyway, let me read the article and then I'll comment...

rlaWTX said...

Thanks, T-Rav.

The Hispanics I know tend to be pretty conservative, so IDK what to do about the bigger picture. Except for the "get out the message" idea. But we're bucking the MSM's "say a lie so many times people believe it" trend...

And I like Speedy Gonzalez. I thought that Slow-poke Rodriguez was the racist one...

T-Rav said...

Thanks, Jed. It's not the most uplifting article I've ever written, I'll admit, but I thought it needed to be said.

I think the socioeconomic position of Hispanics probably varies a lot by state and region. In California, the majority seem to be lower-class and poorly educated; in Texas and Florida, they're much better off. And to be perfectly honest, my neck of the woods is one area that doesn't have a large Latino population, so what I know, I've learned through research, not all of it necessarily trustworthy. But overall, yes, I think it's safe to say that they're less well off than whites as a group, and therefore more susceptible to the promises of the welfare state.

T-Rav said...

To tell the truth, I don't know what the image is. I just thought it looked cool.

I also thought of putting up a picture of a taco. I like tacos.

rlaWTX said...

OH! Bev's Giant-Taco-guy would be a great pic!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think that ultimately it comes down to two things.

First, stop offending them.

Secondly, offer them real solutions that make their lives better and lead them to Middle Class values.

The problem with conservatives is that they've their economic solutions typically sound like "let's hope someone fixes that." That's because typically, all you get from conservatives is, "let the market take care of it." We need to get better at (1) explaining how that works, (2) finding ways to sell people on the idea that it WILL actually work and that we aren't just talking in the abstract, and (3) coming up with ideas that sound like they are more proactive.

The vouchers are the classic example. They will only win people over IF you can show them that it will give them a real choice/alternative to get their kids to better schools. They don't work if all you are doing is promising a theory.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev's Giant Taco-Guy is the image of the year. It's stuck permanently in my head now as the image of Hurricane Sandy.

T-Rav said...

If I had a picture of Mr. Giant Taco-Guy, I would have put it up, so blame Bev for not catching him by now. :-)

Andrew, as I think I've mentioned before, I do have firsthand evidence that vouchers are in fact heavily favored by the black community, especially those in poor inner-city neighborhoods. I don't know how they're received by Hispanics, but especially in areas like southern California where their economic position isn't very good, I would imagine they'd be somewhat receptive.

Again, I do think one of the biggest flaws conservatives run into is assuming that market-oriented solutions will make things better, every time, which isn't always true. The market has natural ups and downs, regardless of the degree of government involvement. What we need to do is show the benefits of the free market over the long term and, as you said, go about that.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The law school I went to was actually conservative and they were big on the market and the problem I kept running into was that someone would pose a problem, someone would respond with "the market will take care of it," and then everyone would nod their heads. It never occurred to them that the market isn't perfect and that people who are looking for a solution want more than "hey, it will work itself out."

The brilliance of guys like Reagan and Walter Williams is that they can say the same thing, but in ways that make people understand WHY it will work. Then you add in someone like a Jack Kemp who found ways to create policies like enterprise zones which could be sold to people, and conservatism was very easy to sell.

Today, it's not. Today, conservatism sounds a lot like "don't tax the rich and everything will be ok." I NEVER hear real solutions to problems.

On vouchers, I agree, they are very attractive to people who are trapped. But again, they need to be sold. Just saying, "oh, we'll create a voucher program and you'll be ok" is not an effective sales pitch. Conservatives need to go in and tell these people why their kids aren't learning and how vouchers will help them... in practical terms: "you can send you kids to that great school down the block." Not just at the top-level, theoretical level.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Where's tryanmax? Let's hope he's not taking this Hostess thing too hard. I'd hate to hear about a hostage crisis in Nebraska today.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I don't know if we have the smarts to make this a policy blog. Maybe. But hey, if no one else is going to offer much of a solution.

The folks at had some really good videos up of charter schools and the turnaround they'd created in post-Katrina New Orleans. Why doesn't stuff like that get wider distribution, I wonder?

Poor tryanmax. And here everyone thought Twinkies would last until the zombie apocalypse. I guess when it comes to disaster-making, the undead are no match for Teamsters.

rlaWTX said...

speaking of, Powerline linked to a story they had about a low-cost, for-profit, minimal-overheard hospital in Oklahoma City.

T-Rav, actually, I read that the Teamsters crossed the picket line, but the bakers' union still wouldn't budge...

I'm sure tryanmax is just hitting all of the local Hostess outlets to stock up... nothing to worry about (checking google for crises), I'm sure...

BevfromNYC said...

I just heard from "the Ghost of Tryanmax" on my post from yesterday. He is now between the physical and the temporal worlds waiting to find out his fate. He said he would know by 5pm HST (Heaven Standard time)...

T-Rav said...

rla, I read that too. But Teamsters sounds cooler than "bakers' union." Besides, I know a really annoying liberal who's a Teamster, so it was slightly cathartic.

Speaking of medical care and all, you know which profession is one of the least regulated in America? Veterinarians. Guess which profession is one of the most efficient and least demanding of paperwork? You got it. But that's one of those things they never want to tell you.

T-Rav said...

Bev, has Heaven switched back from Daylight Savings Time as well? Wait, isn't it supposed to be light there all the time? Doesn't seem like there would be much point in having a time change, honestly...

The (pending) ghost of tryanmax said...

T-Rav, I think those numbers our to California pretty much expose the working belief on GOP immigration policy for what it is: an assumption. It's a convenient assumption for the Dems, too. For one, it gets Republicans to side with them on their open-border agenda and, two, it keeps Republicans distracted from what their real issues with Hispanics are.

There is a clear schizophrenia in the statement that Hispanics prefer big government b/c they are more family oriented. Last I checked, no one sets a place for Uncle Sam at the Thanksgiving dinner table. It's really just a different way of expressing phony liberal "compassion" through generosity with other people's (families') money. A truly family oriented approach would reject such "assistance."

That said, if the Hispanic community is wooed by gov't programs, and clearly much of the white population, the we should do just as you said and try to turn those programs in a conservative direction rather than simply dismantling them. After all, vowing to dismantle all the Washington agencies only raises lots of hackles and is roughly equivalent to promising the moon. (The difference being, one could probably deliver on moon promises eventually.)

Besides, moving programs into a more conservative direction means moving responsibility and control back to the states. I think the only way we're ever going to see any federal programs go away is if they are first subordinated to the state programs and eventually regarded as a drag on those state programs. Part of the reason Republicans haven't been successful in their goals is that they don't seem to have a plan of how to get there. They simply have a list of results they'd like to see.

Tenn. Jed, I have moved further and further away from the notion that people vote their pocket books. That may have been true at one time, but as we've discussed on this site before, liberalism thrives in this country because conservatives work hard to sheild liberals from the consequences they bring on themselves. So while the conservatives are probably still voting their pocket books, they are enabling lots and lots of people not to.

Andrew, I think your point and mine go together. One of the biggest problems with running everything from Washington is that the state laboratories are basically shut down. If there were a way to show vouchers working in one part of the country (and don't expect any help from the media) then that would dramatically shift perception. New ideas are adopted by about 10% of the population, followed by another 20, then another 40, and then finally the stragglers come along. But with no state laboratories, there's no way to get those first 4-6 states started.

T-Rav said...

I can't respond to your statement because I don't believe in ghosts.

Most Overused Movie Quotes said...

T-Rav, ghosts believe in you...

T-Rav said...

But if I did, I would say that I agree with your comments. Hispanics clearly like the welfare net as much as anyone else, so we have to emphasize why those programs are bad things and get serious about eliminating them. I like the idea of returning responsibility for them to the states, as a first step to gradually eliminating many altogether. But clearly, trying to run to the left of the Democrats on immigration won't solve anything.

Tennessee Jed said...

T-Rav -There are many well to do liberals who actually believe their own b.s., or feel guilty, or backed into their beliefs so it is true not everybody does vote their perceived financial self-interest. And sometime it simply takes a very long time before the chickens come home to roost. Government spending can actually have a positive short term impact. Look at Sweden for example, but ultimately the piper gets paid.I still maintain that large swathes of the electorate are not particularly sophisticated about economics, and they tend to vote what seems real to them.

Sure, conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, and let's face it, our message is not as concrete conceptually as one which simply states "we are going to increase your benefits." Our politicians have been just as bad, because they are political animals and it sells. It is a tough sell to get people who are hurting that raising taxes on a few rich people doesn't solve the problem, and revising their goody bag is necessary to keep it viable.

Like it or not, pearly Joe Biden did score points when he looked in the camera, almost maintained a straight face and asked "which party do you trust to protect your social security?" Again, FDR got elected four freakin' times to solve problems he made so much worse. That is not to say there are not other factors people consider beside who is willing to put a chicken in every pot, but assuming people will not continue to vote their pocketbooks to a large degree strikes me as just a tad naive.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, We're more of a policy blog that most policy blogs. We are wonky... yet also irreverent. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, et. al., We absolutely need to push on all fronts to win these people over. That means shifting these programs in conservative directions, gearing them to provide genuine help and giving people an incentive to get off, encouraging education, spurring the economy, etc.

We also need to learn to sell out solutions to average people... stupid people who only want to hear "how does this help me."

And we need to stop protecting liberals from themselves. Let them make a royal mess of everything they do so that their incompetence and the failure of their policies is evident to all but the stupidest, most doctrinaire people.

T-Rav said...

Indeed, Andrew. Indeed. :-)

T-Rav said...

Jed, unfortunately that's why Slow Joe is where he is now--not too bright, but he knows how to demagogue for all he's worth.

The truth is, politics does tend to filter down to the lowest common denominator over time. Give the masses bread and circuses, same old story for millennia. And like Andrew says, refusing to protect people from their bad decisions may be the only way to bring them to their senses. The crash has to happen sooner or later.

Jen said...

I agree with the "stop protecting people from the things they bring on themselves" way of thinking. I think I used to say it like this: "you can't keep protecting stupidity from itself", or something like that. It's been a long time since I've said it.

Tennessee Jed said...

No real disagreement Rav. Don't know if you read any of the articles at American Thinker, but a couple are pretty interesting and are in the same ball park: Time to Let the Country Crash by Ebben Raves and Three Fictions about Obama's 2nd term by J. Robert Smith are woth a read.

T-Rav said...

Jen, or as Ron White would say, "You can't fix stupid." :-) The idea takes different forms, but it's a very durable one.

T-Rav said...

Jed, I do read some of The American Thinker's columns at times, which can be pretty good. I'll have to look those up.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Great post, T-Rav!

On charter schools: Yes, I concur their hasn't been much nat'l exposure.

Here in Washington (state), we had a vote for it and it won.
I'm not so sure it would've won had Bill Gates not been backing it.
He sure pissed off the teachers union. But they haven't really gone after Gates too much because he's a fellow progressive, and he's gotten a lot of goodwill by donating to public schools over the years.

I think he has finally realized that money will never solve the root problems of public education and the unions.
I don't like Gates' ideology, but he is honestly working to get kids educated and isn't all talk.

Of course, now the teachers union is working on a plan to recruit charter school teachers into their union.
If that happens, I expect charter schools will go downhill fast, and be no different than public schools, essentially.

When it comes to school vouchers I think we should push for real school choice and include private and/or religious schools as viable voucher options as well as charter schools.

The teachers union and most on the left will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. All they'll do is offer the teachers unions more moolah while once again promising voters they will fix the problems of public education if they get the funds they need (and believe me, no amout of money will fix it but you know that).

The GOP should be running ads every year about how school choice should be the right of every parent, and the results of private and charter schools in relation to public schools.

Run ads showing how catholic schools outperform public schools with far less money.
And stress how the children benefit from the better education everyone but public schools offers.

Show how union teachers are often not held accountable for sub par performance and are nearly impossible to fire.

There's lots of things like this the republicans can do, but they can't wait until election years.
Air ads often so it's on voters minds when the next election comes up, and every election after that.

And for pete's sake, spend a few bucks to get some quality ads made by folks who know how to do it. Preferably with real humor and a cool factor.

If we tell the truth often enough and long enough then voters just might start to believe us, or at least be skeptical of what the unions keep saying.

The results usually speak for themselves, but obviously, there are more than a few voters who have no clue what the results are and who to believe in the public education bureaucracy.

I think a long, non-stop push to get school choice legalized would help the GOP trememdously. Perhaps as much or more than the children it would help.

Anyhow, it's a good way to pave inroads on our journey to win hearts n' minds back from the dark side.

T-Rav said...

Thanks Ben!

I agree, education reform is one of the greatest potential weapons the GOP has. What we need to do is put on display the state of affairs in public schools, how the teachers' unions have made things so much worse, and then offer our solution. When the Dems protest, stay on the offensive and make them defend their corrupt friends. And keep showing the benefits vouchers and charter schools have brought where they've been implemented.

A lot of people are making the argument that our real problem is cultural, not merely political. If that's true, and I think it is, the fight for the minds of the youths is maybe the most important front in our battle.

Individualist said...


First off we need to analyze California's response to illegal immigration. It is this. Allow anyone in without checking on who they are and ensure they have benefits including welfare, schooling etc. The Dems then promote how they are helping while the GOP rightfully states we are going broke....

If you are already broke, going broke seems to be someone else's issue so when the GOP makes these statesments, no one understands how it affects them.

Note how your statistics state that the break down is 81 12, to 75 222, to 58 36.....

Third generation Americans can get into a place where they learn english well from birth in which case being bilingual is an asset in the business world and fewer of that generation will be reliant on welfare.

Welfare is a trap. I know firsthand how it traps people. People wonder why the drug trade is prevalent among the projects and the standard line is these people are put down by society and they have to resort to this activity to get by. Nonsense. People on welfare can end up getting more in benefits then I take home in pay. The problem is that in order to keep getting this they have to be poor. Having money in a bank account over a certain level turns off the government spicket.

So natutally the people will gravitate to black market work where they can make money under the table. Drug Dealing is all under the table and a lot more lucrative than say migrant form work.

But in the end the market does "work things out". Give to much and more and more will go on the dole and eventually you won't have anything to give. That is where we are headed. These people can think what they want and support who they want but they better enjoy it while they can because their is a deadline looming.

What is going to happen I think is that the dems are going to start lessening the benefits. Things will get harder, welfare checks won't match inflation, they might start imposing work requirements in the guise of community service. At some point these people will find themselves in Soviet Era type rationing unless the economy rebounds by some miracle which is unlikely.

But not to worry when they cut services they'll blame Republicans.

Reading the speeches of Malcolm X he explains the psychology of the "slave" mind. It is ironic but take away rhetoric and racism by replacing black people with people and he talks about very libertarian and conservative principles. He was not a fan of welfare. He distrusted it as some sort of white conspiracy. He wanted black people to be free. He wanted them to be prosperous, to take care of their own, to govern themselves without hassle. His only real issue was his xenophobic reaction to only supporting black people. Once he went to Mecca and came to an understanding that he had white brothers too. Well that is when Elijah Mohammed had him killed. Ironic.

T-Rav said...

Indi, sorry for the delay in responding.

I haven't read Malcolm X so I'll leave that up to those who have. But I agree that the Dems will have no choice but to lessen benefits over time. Honestly, they have no other choice. That's the arithmetic. And at this point, I don't care that they'll blame Republicans. It's not going to save them, in the end.

Individualist said...


I recommend reading his speeches. He gave them at a time when that movement had to respond with explanation and not rhetoric. It will amaze you how his name is used to bring about things he was in complete disagreement with.

Post a Comment