Quote:I was just trying to offer an alternative perspective that is not wholly based around ethnocentric lines, since the original statement you made about black republicans came off as dismissive to non-white groups.
How is it dismissive to avoid pointing out someone's race and categorizing them by it without them first expressing a desire to be so categorized?
Do Republican Blacks feel that they need to be segregated into their own group based on race? If so, I'm cool with it. However, I wouldn't do it based on ideology until that different ideology is expressed. And I wouldn't do it based on race until they made their own race based movement in that direction. I'm not going to group them into their own group for no reason. But, again, I'm indifferent to it until it is an actual issue.
I predict that moving them into their own group would better create that issue of divisiveness before it would close any less perceptible gap within the party.
Race based groups generally equal different, and often conflicting, race based goals. If they have conflicting goals then they should absolutely make their own group. No one will be happy otherwise; but it will predictably turn into their own separate sub-party.
Quote:Republican party won't win going into the future as long as it remains dismissive to non-white groups,
See above on the dismissive charge.
On the "winning" issue, it seems like you might opt to liberalize certain issue platforms in an effort to cater to (traditionally liberal) demographics in order to win elections. If you do that, you don't win even if you win the election. You lose because you stopped fighting. I'd rather lose and keep the political orientation alive then kill the political orientation just to say that we're in office. You can always win office in later years, or otherwise get your way by other means. But not if you give up your political orientation in everything but name only.
Minority groups, if they stay unified and unyielding, can be some of the strongest groups in any nation precisely because they are more cooperative and committed than groups of much larger numbers. I believe that a large conservative contingent has reached a point wherein they aren't going to give more ground, and the entirety of the nation will be better for it whether or not they get into the White House. At this point, holding ground is more important than winning. If conservatives need to hunker down to survive the storm, then that is what they will do but they will emerge with certain values and premises, that protect their party and core community power, intact.
If it isn't about catering to ethnic minorities on policy positions then, again, categorize them however they want.
Quote:unless you want to move to the balkanization of the states and break the U.S. into pieces.
It isn't about "want".
The 1965 immigration act, and associated policies enacted by liberals, do not and should not mandate conservatives to amend their basic political orientation.
What will liberals enact this year that will have "conservatives" again amend their politics as a result in 2050? At what point are you willing to stop giving ground?
What are we even talking about, specifically, to avoid theoretical Balkanization? In my estimation, it would mean completely redefining politics in a manner that essentially forfeits any true political power against exceedingly powerful groups that still exist and have no intention of amending their politics to avoid Balkanization.
To wit, why don't all other groups become socially conservative in an effort to avoid Balkanization? Could White conservatives live with that? Sure, to a reasonable point.
But the liberal contingents that have exploded in demographics and political power since the 1960's, themselves, won't do what is necessary to avoid Balkanization. The powerful minority groups will not denationalize. Why should the conservative base? Why should they change to accommodate the selfish, predictable, and destructive politics of everyone else to avoid their created future conflict? Cramming so many disparate people into a single nation has predictable consequences that have been repeated in history ad naseum. This social experiment is akin to loading a revolver with five bullets and playing Russian Roulette.
If Balkanization is a concern, then liberals and their establishment Republican equivalents should have never legislated for the social conditions that might create it. It doesn't obligate rank and file conservatives to change their politics to avoid nasty consequences. Liberals and neocons will have to lie in their bed, or else the newer citizens should conform to the conservative social standard.
Quote:The whole point was to offer a framing mechanism that is more inclusive.
It's a slope that is too slippery. I think that it is worthy to note that the modern conservative culture in the United States is likely one of the most inclusive in the history of conservative humanity. It isn't perfect, but that's the nature of every movement that has tens of millions of people under its umbrella. You won't change that with ill conceived further attempts to make it superficially more inclusive. In the end, politics is a natural force rooted in community cohesion and it can't be changed fundamentally. Doing so would require severe oppression as occurred in the Soviet Union. Tacking on an "inclusivity" mandate only hobbles the party to likely no meaningful gain in actual inclusiveness or pledges of minority allegiance. the only result will be propaganda that liberals can isolate and use against us.
Those that are in, are already in for the correct reasons. Pandering to inclusiveness would not be one of those good reasons.
Quote:I agree with some of your points, but I am not sure if that is the whole truth. Especially if you look at demographics, there is currently a ton of overlap between various communities (Catholic, Mexican, Western European, WASP, Asian, black) in terms of intermarriage, so that obfuscates the issue of ethnocentric subversion.
I disagree with your overall assessment, but we can agree to disagree. A lot of mixed individuals tend to identify with the minority group, assuming that they can be truly accepted by it (some can not). For intensive purposes, there is no politically powerful mixed group, and there likely will not be because political power is rooted in shared culture. A mixed group, by definition, has no significant shared culture. The generic USA culture that anyone can adopt, when they find themselves disturbingly without something more traditional, will not (and does not) lend the values that incubates group political power.
No one knows more than multi-ethnic individuals themselves how socio-politically marginalized they can be to a large extent. Largely, this is not due to cruelty or some intentional design meant to marginalize them. It's simply the reality of politics - specifically the root in close community politics. Ask mixed-Asians if they are fully accepted in the ethnic Asian community as mixed individuals. Ask African Americans, with a significant admixture, living deep in an African American community. Ask mixed Jewish individuals, in a conservative Jewish community, with a non-Jewish mother. These communities are their political groups. Now ask these communities if they are ready to be more inclusive. Now ask them in nations wherein they are the majority.
Just because intermarriage exists does not change the largely subconscious nature of politics, hurt feelings aside. People cooperate with who they identify with. It's that simple. Cooperation between individuals, to variously higher degrees, is what politics is and what political power is. No more and no less. That is never going to change.
There are exceptions to the rule. People who are so culturally seamless with a group, that they aren't entirely connected to genetically, that people stop seeing and treating them as different. Thus, the sociopolitical cooperation remains intact. I know many individuals with this ability. It's great. I get the sense that there are many individuals like that here on this forum. However, it doesn't change the political reality of large numbers as a whole.
A reminder that I'm just the messenger who observes. I'm not stating any opinion on the manner in which I wish the world operated; I'm only stating how I observe it to operate and what I predict to be the future of that operation.
Quote:Edit: And I realize what you said was in response to the original post, I am just trying to offer alternative perspectives that move the ball away from identity politics. Just testing out ideas here.
Well, its a good effort. The only way out of it, theoretically, is if everyone in the world gave up their identity politics almost at once. And I do mean everyone. Until that happens, you are essentially mandating that some groups give up their political power in the face of groups that are willing to use their naturally stronger community-created political power against those dis-empowered groups. First, no one is moving toward this. Second, it just won't ever happen, period, as you will never be able to stop people from finding and using common ground that gives them a cooperative advantage in competing against atomized individuals for resources. Less competition merely assures that whoever is left rises to permanent power uncontested. In that sense the competition is good for everyone.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes Rigsby's post:
![[Image: Latinos_favor_Clinton_over_Trump_by_39_point_mar.jpg]](http://s33.postimg.org/5spwbjn7z/Latinos_favor_Clinton_over_Trump_by_39_point_mar.jpg)
