[note: this article only ponders the pros and cons of a GOP vs. Third Party strategies. It was written during the apex of Buchanan's bid for President under the Reform ticket. Much has changed. Three points NorCal CofCC would like to make: 1. We must polarize the middle; 2. rediscover an economic nationalism/populism; 3. admit that our only example of a successful Third Party--the 1854 Republican Party--nevertheless involved a mainstream party ... The GOP was the result of a merger amongst Liberty, Union, and FreeSoil Parties spearheaded by disaffected Whig leaders and base. We cannot ignore the GOP today, and its rightwing will provide a base and leadership even for a third party advocates...Thus, there is no way around the GOP question, and it must be constructively approached...Even what Buchanan did involved enormous preparation work, and in the final analysis it was half-baked.]
Karl von Clauswitz, the great German military strategist, once wrote that “war is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” Perhaps the reverse statement is also true. Politics is war by other means — especially in today’s multicultural America. Americans of European descent — whether they wish to fight or even realize war has been declared — are the enemy in a low-intensity conflict that many have called the Culture War. It is a multi-front war waged through politics, economics, culture, demographics, and even religion. Each aspect of the war is important, but of these the real killing weapon is politics.
Stripped of noble sentiment, politics is about getting and exercising power. In past ages, predators, disease, famine, natural disasters and armed conflict governed the evolution of human societies. In the modern era, these factors are under control as never before. Today it is power, exercised through politics, that dictates the fates of peoples and of nations. Thanks to the wisdom of our ancestors, we determine who holds power through elections. But when, as is increasingly the case today, political parties do not represent our interests, it is time to make sure they do — or to establish new parties that will.
Our failure to treat politics as serious business has made us the losers in the Culture War. Laws passed by democratically elected politicians have created an immigration policy promising to make white Americans a minority in the country their ancestors created. This is insane.
But who’s fault is it? It is fear of the liberal media and political reprisals by bloc-voting minorities that leads Congress and state legislatures — all overwhelmingly white — to pass affirmative action laws, and also leads overwhelmingly white judicial bodies to declare these laws constitutional. It is politics that produces “hate crime” laws that criminalize thought and are enforced mainly against whites.
However, there may be reason for hope. In retrospect, the fragmented and inconclusive 1998 election may have provided the first, faint sign that people are waking up.
The election did continue the trend of white politicians dodging the real issues and non-whites voting as blocs for their own interests. But this time, many whites simply sat out the election, and the party out of the White House at mid-term lost seats in Congress for the first time since the 1930s.
Democrats often won in the South with 90 percent or more of the black vote, and Mexicans helped them oust a Republican from the California governor’s mansion. That much is consistent with past trends. But whites, who do not vote as a bloc and are often taken for granted by both parties, were less willing to settle for the lesser of two evils. This message has become the dominant theme of the 1999 political season, from New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith’s defection from the GOP to Pat Buchanan’s switch to the Reform Party. It is no accident that it is whites — and almost no non-whites — who are going over to third parties. Perhaps the most intriguing implication of the 1998 election as well as Mr. Buchanan’s presidential campaign is that they may be warning signs that a Republican Party that ignores the race issue cannot survive in the 21st century.
Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubinstein made this prediction in National Review a few years ago, in an article analyzing the political impact of the immigration-fed demographic revolution that could reduce whites to a minority by the middle of the next century. The authors correctly pointed out that Republican electoral strength is largely based on the loyalty of middle-class whites. Noting that almost all non-white ethnic groups vote Democrat — sometimes overwhelmingly — they projected that by 2008 a Republican Party consisting primarily of middle class whites would no longer have the numbers to win a presidential election.
Dictating the Destiny
If this happens, it will be one of the most profound changes in American political history. It raises the prospect of Third World ethnic groups dictating the destiny of the nation. Already, because whites do not vote as an ethnic bloc, Third World groups use moral intimidation and the implied threat of riots to make white politicians meet their demands. But once these groups are a majority they can simply vote to take whatever they want — legally.
The Republican Party is in a vice. The demographic balance on which it depends is transient. Unless immigration is halted the GOP’s days are numbered — at least as a party that pushes its traditional platform. The GOP therefore has two ways to respond. One is to compete with Democrats for non-white votes and the other is to rally white, middle-class support — something Ronald Reagan managed to do. To follow the latter path, Republicans must build a broader coalition by appealing to the widest possible range of white voters.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are dominated by economic and business interests. In catering to these interests, they have ceded many low-wage whites to the Democrats. Republicans support free trade, open borders and other economic nostrums out of commitment to principle rather than out of loyalty to the people to whom they owe their tenuous congressional majority. But even worse for the Republicans, the internationalist elites in media and entertainment, who have close ties to business, are often as likely to support the Democratic Party as the GOP. Any benefits Republicans may anticipate from big business will disappear as immigration works its changes on demographics and voting patterns.
In order to build a broader consensus, Republicans must appeal to the blue collar workers hit hardest by immigration and cheap imports. Using that base, they should then move to halt and even reverse immigration. Even aside from immigration, the GOP would have broad support if it had the courage to attack racial preferences, multiculturalism, women in the military, homosexual “rights,” socialist education policies, teachers’ unions, and any number of inviting leftist targets.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have chosen to become more like Democrats. Much of the feel-good rhetoric of George W. Bush, Christine Todd Whitman, John Warner and the Republican Leadership Council is pitched to the Democrats’ proletariat of non-whites, feminists, homosexuals and other disaffected groups.
Ethnic identity has long played an important role in voting patterns — except for whites. Results vary, but in recent decades roughly 90 percent of blacks and 85 percent of Hispanics have voted for Democrats. If Republicans are to lure these voters, they must adopt Democratic policies, which will alienate whites and will not work anyway.
The 1998 election showed the futility of GOP attempts to sound like Democrats. Despite the efforts of “kinder, gentler” Republicans, blacks voted in overwhelming numbers for the party of domestic socialism. Even more or less solid Republicans lost when they failed to broaden their appeal to more whites. In Alabama, for example, black Democrats lured the “boyz in the “hood” to the polls with free raffle tickets for a car. Whites failed to vote as a bloc and as a result, Fob James, a Christian governor who restored the Confederate Flag and vowed to defend the Ten Commandments with the National Guard, was replaced by a man who owes his election — and therefore his loyalty — to blacks.
One of the biggest Republican insanities was supporting Puerto Rican statehood. Puerto Rico is pure trouble for the GOP — it is both black and Hispanic. Its four million Spanish-speaking non-white inhabitants have no loyalty to America as a traditional European nation. It has twice the U.S. drug addiction rate, over twice the murder rate, and four times the U.S. unemployment rate. It’s average household income is only half that of Mississippi, our poorest state. The chances of any of its two senators and half-dozen congressmen being Republicans are essentially zero.
With all the Republican posturing on behalf of their Caribbean co-linguists, did California’s Mexicans rush to the polls in support of Newt Gingrich’s
“Hispanic-friendly” GOP? Hardly. Unlike us, Mexicans understand who they are and what political solidarity means. One of their organizations is called La Raza, which means, simply, “the race.” Pete Wilson may well be California’s last-ever Republican governor and unless immigration is stopped, Gray Davis may be the last-ever white governor.
The Republican strategy of stealing votes from the Democrats will never work. Republicans will never out-promise the Democrats without simply becoming Democrats themselves. The 1998 election showed how far we have come toward the day when non-white bloc-voting will dictate the future of America. Even with whites at 70 percent of the population, political correctness, affirmative action, hate crime laws, cultural dispossession, and anti-white violence go largely unopposed.
The only possibility for the survival of the Republican Party is to reassemble the coalition of middle-class and blue-collar Americans Ronald Reagan energized and for whom Pat Buchanan speaks today. Whether implicitly or explicitly, Republicans must recognize the legitimacy of race in determining political loyalty. To date, Republicans are reluctant to follow this strategy for fear of media smears, but no movement can succeed if its supporters are afraid of being called names.
There was another little-noticed but important point about Election 1998 that points towards a different political future. GOP losers were often moderates rather than conservatives. These included New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who was replaced by gun-grabbing ultra-liberal Charles Schumer; GOP gubernatorial candidate Daniel Lungren, whose pro-immigration stance cost the GOP the California governorship for the first time in sixteen years; South Carolina Governor David Beasley, who issued an executive order instituting the Brady Act and who broke his promise to keep the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina capitol building; and almost every Republican in a tight race who was endorsed by Christine Todd Whitman.
According to Arkansas activist Rod Martin, a likely GOP House candidate in 2000, “the 1998 numbers are especially instructive when examined in this light. Conservatives actually gained more seats than either the Republicans or Democrats, with fifteen pick-ups in the House (twelve Republican and three Democrat) plus Peter Fitzgerald in the Senate … Supposedly-moderate Republican Governors who won big actually had impressive records of state-level conservatism in every case, from Tommy Thompson’s school vouchers to … Mike Huckabee’s welfare reform successes and background as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.”
Meanwhile, Democrats continued their assault on the Founders’ Constitution through issues like the Second Amendment. Of the 39 new House members, half are anti-gun Democrats as defined by Gun Owners of America. Interestingly, the three new members whom it found to be solidly pro-gun — two Democrats and one Republican — are all from the South. One new House Democrat from Texas did turn out to be anti-gun. His name is Gonzales, and his voting record tells us the effect we can expect on traditional rights from high levels of immigration.
But what does it mean when moderates lose while conservatives and liberals win? It may indicate that American politics are leaving the realm where compromise is possible.
The middle ground is eroding. People are beginning to realize that unless they get off the fence and defend their families, their heritage, their religion, and their nation, they are going to be overrun by Third World immigrants and crushed by repressive government. What is happening is polarization, a necessary polarization that shocks people out of their apathy. Polarization means choices become genuinely meaningful.
Where is all this leading? History provides a bleak precedent. In 1858, as America slid inexorably toward war, New York senator William Seward spoke of an “irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces.” We live in similarly turbulent and divided times, and many believe that irreconcilable differences are once again demanding resolution. One can find similar words of warning from across the political spectrum, from Pat Buchanan on the right; to establishment figures such as Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Michael Clough, and Atlantic author Robert Kaplan, to black columnist Carl Rowan on the left.
Mr. Buchanan has often cited the example of the ethnic strife in the Balkans as a warning against continued immigration. Mr. Kaplan has repeatedly painted a grim picture of the twenty-first century: world-wide mass migrations, starvation, anarchy and constant civil war.
Closer to home, Michael Clough, a senior fellow at the CFR, predicts the breakup of America along ethnic lines. Without giving a timetable, he says the dissolution of the United States is already underway and believes it is irreversible. He writes, “America is destined to become a country of distinct, relatively independent regions, each with its own politico-cultural economies, metropolitan centers, governing elites, and global interests.” He points out that in the face of ethnic fragmentation, “it is less and less possible for nationally-minded elites sitting in Washington and New York to construct policies” that can keep America’s increasingly Balkanized population quiet. Mr. Clough warns that unless there are autonomous regions governing themselves, “the stage could be set for a series of economic and cultural civil wars pitting regions of the country against each other.” He suggests it is “naive and dangerous” for elites “to cling to the idea of one nation, one culture.”
Perhaps the most thoughtful analysis is Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations.” First published as an article in the CFR’s flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, and later expanded to book length, it charts the re-emergence of cultural, religious and ethnic affinities in world affairs after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prof. Huntington offers strong evidence that major ethnic and religious groupings of the world’s peoples, which he terms civilizations, constitute the new battle ground in the struggle for human survival and predominance in the post-Cold War world.
Prof. Huntington asserts that religion is the most powerful unifying force in human affairs, followed closely by ethnic identity. Ideological fads, be they Marxism or democracy, count for nothing for most of the world’s peoples. And, says Prof. Huntington, the West’s quaint notion that it can “export” democracy, human rights, and other Western values is a conceit we can ill afford in a world where the West’s power is diminishing rapidly. Prof. Huntington even cites as a warning Jean Raspail’s haunting novel, The Camp of the Saints, which describes the destruction of the West by Third World immigration.
I sometimes play a little game in my mind. The game is to guess which of the ante-bellum years we live in. I would guess it is about 1840, give or take a few years. Then, as now, there were those who foresaw the potential for conflict inherent in the political climate of the times. Predictions of conflict do not make conflict inevitable, but they do suggest America is not necessarily stable.
Given the presence in the West of tens of millions of non-European peoples, a figure that could grow to hundreds of millions in the coming decades, it is doubtful all differences can be resolved. Despite the sincere wishes of many men and women — including those whose views must be counted as conservative and patriotic — these Third World aliens are simply not assimilable. The implications are inescapable. The West must act if it is to survive. Given sufficient political will, redress by peaceful means is still possible. But if history is any guide, rational means may not be used — just as they were not used in the 1840s and 1850s.
How can we move toward resolution? The answer is to widen the growing fissures of polarization beginning to appear. This can be brought about only by political activism, which is at present the only alternative with any chance of success. In today’s context, the most effective strategy is probably populism — which Pat Buchanan calls economic nationalism. This is probably the only strategy with an appeal broad enough to attract a winning combination of supporters.
If the GOP doesn’t have the stomach for this, if George Wallace was right when he said “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between Democrats and Republicans, European-descended Americans must build a nationalist movement through a third party. Admittedly, this will be difficult. Most third parties are little better than spoilers, like Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party in 1912, which allowed Woodrow Wilson, our first New World Order president, to win the election — or as Ross Perot may have been in 1992 and 1996, possibly drawing off enough votes to elect William Clinton.
However, in extraordinary times, third parties can gain power. In 1860, Republicans combined Whig protectionism with Unitarian abolitionism to put Lincoln in the White House. We may yet see the GOP fade into oblivion on its own, like the Whigs of yesteryear, but it would be foolish to wait. Time is short and demographics are changing rapidly. We can give Humpty Dumpty a push?
Unfortunately, none of the parties with any significant following — Libertarian, Reform or Constitution (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers’ Party) — is ideal. While their stand against government is admirable, the Libertarian commitment to personal freedom no matter the consequences leads to support for pornography, legalized drugs, free trade, open borders, and unlimited immigration. The Reform Party may be closest to Pat Buchanan’s message of economic nationalism. Indeed, some analysts believe that in 1992 and 1996 it attracted as many Reagan Democrats as it did disgusted conservatives.
But many Reform Party leaders have little sympathy for the issues that concern Christians and other social conservatives — moral values, abortion, prayer in school, pornography, etc. Its great advantage is that it qualifies for $12 million in federal matching campaign funds. On paper, the newly-renamed Constitution Party represents social conservatives. It is for sound, conservative fiscal policy and for traditional morality. However, it has not attracted large numbers, particularly from the Christian Right. Also, while generally opposed to immigration, it avoids the explicit appeal to ethnic identity that will be required to build a real nationalist movement.
Many threads must be woven together to create such a movement. These include the middle class, blue collar and ethnic whites, Southerners, Christian conservatives, constitutionalists, patriots, and even some disaffected Libertarians. The key is to bring together as many of our European-descended cousins as possible, for only in numbers can there be success. A merger of the Reform Party with the Constitution Party would be worth working for, particularly if Pat Buchanan wins the Reform Party presidential nomination. The result would be a strong base for expansion.
We also need grass roots political activism, with leaders who are willing to confront the race question directly. If the real issues can never be talked about there is no possibility they will enter the political process. Perhaps the most promising organization in this regard is the Council of Conservative Citizens. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the media tried its usual hatchet job on the C of CC, but to the left’s surprise and dismay, the C of CC held its ground, and has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.
One thing is certain: the Culture War will not go away. We have no choice but to fight those whose actions — whether their motives are malevolent or merely misguided — would destroy Western Civilization and push aside its founding peoples. We still have the numbers to win — and to win legitimately within the framework of the Constitution. But we do not have much time. We must force people away from the middle. We must polarize them. Most important, we must never let the question of our right to exist as a distinct people be declared off-limits. We must make it the central political question of our time.
Michael W. Masters is chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens.