Articles

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

How the Left Wins Elections by Transforming Nations

Elections are won by demographics. No soup company blindly dumps cans of its newest "Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3" in Aisle 6 of the supermarket without testing to see what demographics such a hideous concoction might appeal to. Will the product appeal to lesbian single mothers, divorced Asian firefighters or eccentric Latvian millionaires? Politics is no different.

A political party has its base, definable groups who groove to its message, who eat up the red meat that its candidates toss their way. It has the demographic groups which will always vote for it and those who might swing its way. It knows them by race, gender, age, class, sexuality, home ownership and a thousand other statistical slices of the pie. It has those numbers broken down by states, cities and neighborhoods so that it has a good estimate of its chances in a given place and time based on the demographics of the people who live there.

This kind of information is helpful for winning elections-- but showing up to play the electoral hand you're dealt is for suckers. And by suckers, I mean conservative parties.

Breaking down the demographics is like looking at the cards in your hand. Once you've done that, the only remaining variable in a static game are your opponent's cards. With election demographics, players can see all the cards everyone has. That makes the game static. Hands will inevitably be won or lost... unless you can draw some new cards.

The most obvious way to play the demographic game of thrones is with gerrymandered districts. A gerrymandered district is shaped to include a majority of the winning demographic leading to a nearly automatic victory for the party. It's the political equivalent of stacking the deck.

Gerrymandered districts are of dubious legality, except when shaped to create a majority minority district, in which case it becomes an obligation under civil rights laws. This stacks the deck, creating permanent sinecures for some horribly incompetent politicians and permanent seats for the Democratic Party.

But that is just a matter of rearranging the cards in the deck. What if you could bring in cards from outside the deck? What if you could change the value of some cards? Then you would be on the way to being the best card sharp in Washington D.C. or London or Paris.

Sure you could win elections by creating a few gerrymandered districts, but you couldn't win a country that way. To do that, you have to change the national demographics.

Suppose you were running our fictional soup company and you discovered that "Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3" isn't popular with key demographics. The only people who like it are unemployed Pakistani immigrants, lesbian single mothers and divorced Asian firefighters.

Sure you could take a shot at putting out another flavor, but damn it, you like this one. And you also spent your entire advertising budget for the next three years promoting it, and thanks to your ad campaign, everyone now associates your company with "Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3". And if people don't like it, then your company is doomed.

You could try to change people's minds, or you could try to change the demographics to ones that favor your soup. To do that, you would have to bring in a lot of Pakistani immigrants, create a poor economic climate, promote divorce and homosexuality, and create some public sector jobs.

Luckily, no soup company can do that sort of thing. But governments can.

That's the neat thing about governments, if they want to change national demographics, bring in more immigrants, create more single-parent families and more unemployment; they can do all those things easily.

Suppose, for example, that instead of running a soup company, you are a UK Labour politician. They say you're bright, and while that may be debatable and some time later the very people who said it will spit in disgust at the idea, but you are young and you can see the writing on the wall. After Thatcher, there's no future for the kind of cheap labor radical who threatens to take the workers into the streets at every opportunity. The working-class vote that your party identified with is on the way out. And even if it wasn't, it won't survive the leftward drift of your party.

Fortunately, you don't run a soup company. You run the United Kingdom and what you do is open up the doors to bring in as many Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and that sort into the country as you can. And that way you can create a demographic that will support you, even when the native workers won't.

Not that this sort of thing could ever happen. A political party could never decide to use its power to import huge numbers of foreigners to displace its domestic base and create a new demographic picture more favorable to its political ambitions. Except that is exactly what happened in the UK.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".


It also happened here, with the indefatigable work of a champion swimmer and legislator in the Senate with a rather famous last name. It's happening in quite a few places. And not only with immigration. The demographic cards are being shifted, new cards are being palmed, and some cards are having their value altered.

Suppose that your statistics show that unemployed people are more likely to vote for you than the employed. Then your goal would be to shift as many of those who ordinarily wouldn't vote you from the ranks of the employed to those of the unemployed. And once they were on benefits, they might just come to support you, even though you were the one who maneuvered to deprive them of their employment.

That sort of thing is childishly easy to do if you happen to have a government and a party with extensive partnerships with progressive non-profits and powerful think-tanks and foundations.

Say that workers in factories were 40 percent less likely to vote your way and 80 percent more likely to disapprove of your core "Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3" agenda, while only 19 percent of unemployed workers who used to have jobs in factories vote against you and only 56 percent of them are against your core agenda-- and they don't even care much about it anymore because their lives have been turned upside-down and they're not sure of anything anymore.

There's an easy answer. Just start shutting down factories on any pretext. Accuse them of pollution, increase their costs, tax and inspect them to death, and make dumping foreign products on the market easier with the complicity of conservatives who are too stupid to understand the game being run on them; and do everything you can to transform the domestic working-class that used to be your base, before you went too far left, into unemployed men sitting bitterly drinking beer while wondering what happened to their country.

Suppose that your soup is called Barack Hussein Obama. In a 2008 taste test, 39 percent of working- class white men chose your soup. But in 2012, only 29 percent are willing to choose your soup. That's a problem, when people choose their government... but not a problem when governments choose their people.

Got cattle with hoof-and-mouth disease? Kill the cattle and the disease goes away. If working-class white men are a problem for you, then you have to make sure that they don't have a future and create a country with fewer white men who haven't gone to college, and fewer white men overall. And then the problem is solved.

Can't win elections with your current agenda in a country with the current makeup? Dream big, plan even bigger. Drag everyone into college, import the right sort of immigrants, make divorce as common as possible, kill jobs. Don't start now. Start doing it forty or fifty years ago. Turn Leave It to Beaver into Modern Family and suddenly the liberals will stop looking like commie egghead freaks and the conservatives will start looking like square robotic freaks who keep talking about someone they call "God", something they call a "Traditional Family" and something they describe as "Jobs."

Bertolt Brecht once wrote, "Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government's confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be simpler if the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?"

Brecht's sarcasm is now literal truth. Western governments are dissolving their peoples and electing other peoples in their place. Democracy allows peoples to elect governments, but power also allows governments to elect a people. The left has decided that it can win the demographic game of thrones by changing the demographics. And it's right.

The terrain of the battlefield often determines defeat and victory. The left changes the terrain, while the right keeps trying to fight on the new terrain. And the only way to do that is by going to the left. The right still wins elections, but the left is winning the war for the future. It is shaping the electorate demographics that favor it. To win the future, it doesn't have to win every election; all it has to do is keep changing the demographics until either the right cannot have any hope of winning any more or until the right is so far left that there no longer is anything that can be described as an opposition.

Demographics is destiny. The left is reshaping countries to match its demographic targets. It is turning nations into one great gerrymandered district composed of populations that are more likely to support it. It is doing this using immigration, economics, social policy and every tool at its disposal. And if conservatives don't start understanding the demographic game of thrones, then they will lose the war.





16 comments:

NormanF said...

The Israeli Left did not intend to make Israel a center-right country.

It has made a mistake it can't undo. But now it wants to try to reverse it by supporting illegal African immigration to the Jewish State.

If it can't change the proportion of Jews in Israel more to its liking, it can try to change the number of non-Jews who could become Israeli citizens to its liking.

This would allow them to change Israel from a Jewish State into a "state of all its citizens."

The Left all over the world is discovering gerrymandering electoral districts isn't good enough to keep it in power. Its discovering something far more potent: it can import immigrants to create the country it wants in its image.

Demography is not just about national identity or even raw numbers - in Israel and in other places around the worlds its a no-holds barred struggle for political power. And the side that wins the demographics stakes wins the future.

Jerry McFligh said...

No one has a problem with South Africa wanting Africans to rule.
No one has a problem with China wanting Chinese to rule.

NeeNee said...

Read Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" (translated from the French, I believe).

Back in the 1970's when many of us experienced Jimmah Carter's gas lines, European nations also suffered lack of supply with high prices. Muslim officials went into England, France, Germany and possibly Holland offering them an unlimited/uninterrupted supply of oil for years to come. Only catch was that the muslim people were to be allowed to settle in those countries. Many stipulations: these new muslim citizens would not be expected to assimilate, they would keep their own language/religion/customs.

Forty years later, we now see young European muslims who are like the "Man Without a Country"---they are angry and hate the land where they were born, as well as its white inhabitants.

Absolutely great analogy, Daniel.
That "Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg & Omega3" is a brilliant attention-getting device! I forwarded your article to my grown children, as well as all on my email list. Superb!

American Genie said...

Hey Norma, have you ever heard the expression...

Nah, never mind. If you didn't understand this brilliant post you won't get that either.

Maybe a remedial reading class would help.

mindRider said...

What an exceptionally flexibility of mind must you posses to come up with the line of thought expressed in this post but consider some external events of influence on today's demographic cross section. The fact that American democrats must have started catering for your concept very early by importing African involuntary laborers and integrating parts of Mexico to now get latino influx as well as all those European ex colonial nations (mine included) by fine tuning the backlash of centuries of benefit reaped to the "just in time"delivery of a labor electorate would show planning beyond the possible. In one of the comments the oil crisis in the aftermath of the Yom-Kippur war and subsequent negotiations with the arab oil producing countries is given, which I find a more plausible one for the streams of moslims into Europe even though the first migrant labor was induced by the laziness of the affluent North-western European nations' labor force to engage any longer in demeaning manual work. So even if reality of your idea as posed here is doubtful it definitely falls under: Si non è vero, è ben trovato.

Adam said...

Wow, what an amazing article! It all makes sense now. The only thing I didn't agree with is where he mentioned Conservatives. It's not necessarily Conservatives, but Republicans who are too stupid to realize they are not Conservatives.

But great article none the less, it should be republished everywhere possible.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

African laborers were not imported with any intent that they be able to vote, however eastern political machines did import immigrants for their political machines beginning in the 19th century.

Brit said...

Anyone who votes for Labour in the UK is now a traitor to the nation, though it may not matter soon. While the left sold Britain out on a whim the odd thing is, they are going to come to regret it.

The election victory of George Galloway with his odious 'Respect' party in Bradford when he stood on a pro-muslim platform (and even tweeted that his victory was 'by the grace of God' which is pretty amazing for a Communist from Glasgow) shows a trend that increasingly will bite the left hard.

Enclaves of islamist groups in Britain will drive out other people and thus dominate local elections, almost exclusively at the expense of Labour. Bradford was once a socialist stronghold, but not so much now. The so-called 'religion of peace' will want to vote not for the Labour party that welcomed them to the UK, but for their own man.

It may even be that their own man won't speak English, but as he may have no intention of attending the House Of Commons, what does it matter?

revereridesagain said...

Dan, your article is excellent but I must ask why conservatives persist in believing that an adult who is divorced, childfree, and atheist must consequently also be a collectivist multiculturalist devoid of positive values? If so, how am I to explain myself, since I fit the first three pariah categories and yet here I am, pro-capitalist, individualist, and stubbornly resistant to the multiculti snake oil pitch.

Is bringing back "Leave It To Beaver", forcing people to remain in unhappy marriages, compelling women to have children they do not want (and consequently will not be good at raising), and trying to badger us heathen into accepting a god and supernaturalist traditions -- instead of reason -- as the only legitimate basis for values really the answer? And if so, what do you do with people like us?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

There's a difference between a society having normative values and those values being compulsory.

Every society has values. Eliminating traditional values means that the vacuum will be filled by something else.

Nowhere in the article do I say that divorced atheists with no children have no values and have no value. But on the other hand I have to ask you whether you really think a society composed of divorced atheists with no children would be able to survive for more than a generation?

Anonymous said...

The irony is that although mass immigration in the UK by the Labour party is crippling the conservative vote, it will also cripple the Labour vote in the long run too. The Respect party, a mix of Islamists and Socialists, are the ones now winning the council seats and MP's in places like Bradford and Birmingham where there is a high Muslim demographic.

Anonymous said...

It isn't only the left. Evangelicals have become more supportive of illegal immigrants as many of them are conservative Christians and have seen too many of their church members be deported. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/15/will-evangelicals-immigration-shift-mean-common-ground-with-obama.html

Basically if there is political advantage to bringing a population into the country both the left and the right are not above it.

Flit Andersen said...

This is no news. I have known for some time this was what "fixing" our immigration policy was all about - watering down the patriotic population with thieving aliens. Many Republicans don't have the guts to call this what it is because the Left controls the message (You're just a "hater"!) and the "Rockefeller" Republicans don't bitch because they're really happy to get the cheap labor even if it IS at the expense of our security & ultimately, our nation.
The thing "W" used to say that used to drive me crazy was "We can't round up 20 million people". Maybe not, but maybe we could round up 1 million. Or maybe 8. But we never tried to round up any.
Grrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Economies are also the result of demographics. The U.S. economy was fueled high by the large population of baby boomers who, as they grew up, married and started families, buying homes and cars, furnishings, etc. In addition, the "charge card" became a popular way of living the good life today without having to pay for it today. They went into debt believing the future would always be better.

They didn't have very many children though so the following generation couldn't both pay for the current retirees and their health costs while also paying to raise their own families. But they too created huge chunks of debt which added to the baby boomers debt.

Adding fuel to the fire, during the good times, i.e., the spending spree of the baby boomers and their huge runup of debt, governments also went on a spending spree and decided to give everyone something. They promised more and more, also believing the good times will go on forever.

Beyond that, during the last half century, immorality, greed, and corruption in both governments and business became commonplace. And with a political class which is both incompetent and as corrupt as a Madoff pyramid scheme, the walls had to come tumbling down.

David R. Graham said...

Thank you, beautifully written, and brilliant. Arrived from Driscoll's piece. These details had not occurred to me before. They look sound. A thought nags: is there more than the left acting here? More specifically, is there inside the left an element interested more in punishment of "Western Civ" (aka "white men" and "Christianity") than padding their political nest/future? Is this left we see now, at least in USA, more Fanon than Frankfort School? More intent on destruction than pretending construction. I think it is, but I'm too far from the soup to test it directly.

Anonymous said...

Elections are won by demographics.

Only when there is universal suffrage.

One of the (many) Science Fiction predictions soon to be fulfilled:
The qualifier for suffrage will be not citizenship but payment of taxes.

Post a Comment