A new kind of Democrat?

NY State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., profiled in the NY Times, truly represents the typical views of his NAM constituents. He’s against abortion and gay marriage, but left-wing when it comes to government benefits for poor people.

People like Diaz will become a bigger voice in the Democratic Party as it becomes more a party of NAMs and less a party of whites. But the liberal SWPL whites who control the Democratic party with an iron grip will fight guys like Diaz. The liberal leadership only wants NAM votes and not NAM views on policy.

Comments

[kurt9]

I agree that this is the long-term future of the democratic party. The NAM's are socially conservative, but very far-left on economic issues (they want all of the largess from the public treasury that they can get). It will be interesting to watch people like Mr. Diaz duke it out with the limousine liberals that currently dominate the democratic party. This suggests that the republican party should renew its commitment to libertarian economic policy, but should also work for immigration reform and should be moderate on social issues. Steve Sailor's strategy of getting the democrats labeled as the "black" party may well be correct.

[Robert]

This guy echoes an old school Democrat back when Democrats backed poor and working class white men.

[Henceforth Danforth]

I do not think the parasitic infection is bad enough to wake the SWPLs. They still have their enclaves safe from interaction with real NAMs (not the well-spoken clean ones), and more mouths sucking at the government teat means more votes for the party that promises plunder of the productive whites (working class suckers). The future is a brown Brave New World.

[Heck]

The term NAM is a peculiar one without much currency outside of America. It is South Asian immigrants who appear to be the most unpopular with the native Brits in the UK, and I see them as only marginally more palatable than Black People.

The use of the term Brown People is becoming more inescapable and besides, they call us White People, so I don't see the problem.

Token on topic take: "The liberal leadership only wants NAM votes and not NAM views on policy." - not exactly a revelation.

[blighter]

Spot on, HS.

But the SWPL elites of the Dem. party will fight as hard as they can for as long as possible to ignore the fact that they abhor NAM policy views.

Witness all the blame cast on Mormons for the CA anti-gay marriage vote. Yes, the Mormons campaigned against it, perhaps even hard. But then Hollywood was trying just as hard to get it. What defeated it was the record number of black folks who came out for Obama and don't like gay marriage.

But acknowledging that would mean acknowledging that NAM policy views are anathema to the SWPL elites, so we'll all just blame it on the white Mormons instead. Much less cognitive dissonance that way.

[JewishAtheist]

Sounds like Mike Huckabee to me. Are you sure it's the future of the Democrats?

[HS: You need to ask yourself what's harder to imagine: Huckabee becoming a Democrat, or this Diaz guy becoming a Republican.]

[Wade Nichols]

"But the liberal SWPL whites who control the Democratic party with an iron grip will fight guys like Diaz."

As Henry Kissinger allegedly once said about the Iran-Iraq war, "Too bad they can't both lose."

[dearieme]

"It is South Asian immigrants who appear to be the most unpopular with the native Brits in the UK": not all sorts, though. I leave you to guess which.

[Jack]

Actually, polls don't show Hispanics to be much less supportive of abortion and gay marriage than whites. Diaz is not really representative of Hispanics in NY, he's more representing his own beliefs. The black community, however, IS more conservative on these issues.

Diaz is more of a real Democrat than the elitist feminist PC morons that make up the party today.

[Kevin K]

"He’s against abortion and gay marriage, but left-wing when it comes to government benefits for poor people."

This party would be very popular with white Catholics too.

[razib]

latinos and white catholics aren't as socially conservative as you guys assume. look at the GSS, i have. it's blacks (and muslims) who are social conserv + fiscal liberal.

[sestamibi]

I have long maintained (based on my personal experience as a GOP activist, especially in the last ten years), that the Republican party is on life support--literally, since all too many of its activists re superannuated retirees. As we become a non-white nation it will be destined for the trash heap. Face it, despite the bilge about "big tents" and "inclusiveness", the Lee Atwater goal of 20% of the black vote and the characterization of Hispanics as "natural Republicans" with "family values" and "entrepreneurial cultures" (neither of which is true, by the way), it just ain't gonna happen.

However, I also maintain that the Democrat party is a very tenuous coalition of groups that hate each other's guts, held together only by a common hatred of Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton. Now that he's gone, all these fault lines (represented glaringly by Sen. Diaz), become very visible. They don't have more than ten years beyond the GOP implosion. It's hard to say what shape politics will take after that.

For the short term, however, we can see the pattern emerging. Right now, Republican means white, but it won't be long before white means Republican. The voting patterns in the NY mayoral election show this quite ominously. While Bloomberg only used the GOP line as a matter of convenience, one can see that he won the confidence of ALL white New York--from the last remaining white Catholics in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, to the SWPL types on the Upper West Side, Greenwich Village, and even scoring upwards of 80% on the Upper East Side.

Check the NY Times interactive election result map for further info:

http://tinyurl.com/ylyce8r

[HS: In order for the Republicans to represent all whites, they will have to losen up on their ties to Christian whites.]

[Richard Hoste www.hbdbooks.com]

“I see people looking at me, like, ‘Look at this guy,’ ”Mr. Díaz said, rolling his eyes. “And in the end, I get what want.”

----

Is this a typo in The Times or some black lingo I don't understand?

[kurt9]

Blacks are not socially conservative per se. Its just that homosexuality offends their sense of masculinity.

[miles]

SWPLS are going to be very dissapointed in the future when they find out NAM's will choose their own in the voting booths. You can look for the democratic party to become more and more hispanic, black, and "other". They will generally be aligned against white males. Blood is thicker than water, and you cannot "outsmart common sense", but these truths get lost somewhere with the SWPLS.

Steve Sailer has actually come up with the most elegant solution for the GOP to "take the issue away" from all the "others" and "hispanics" by classifying them as white (so the Dems cant buy their votes with set-asides and other goodies), but I doubt they will ever go for it.

If I were an investor in entire countries, I would not be long-term bullish on the USA (unfortunately......I hope Im wrong about this). We are making too many big mistakes at the same time.

[CC01]

Yes I've been pointing this out as well. Liberals like their faithful colored companions to act like Tonto. The problem comes the day the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded. Lone Ranger says to Tonto "well buddy, it looks like we're surrounded?" Tonto says "who's surrounded?"

[ogunsiron]

According to wikipedia, mexicans, central and south americans represent approx. 80% of hispanics in the usa. The other ones are cubans, puerto ricans and other caribbeans.

Thus hispanics may not appear to be very anti-gay because most of them have no links to black people or black culture.

The cubans, caribbean and puerto ricans, even the white ones, might have a much more "black like" opinion about gays. This particular fellow is probably dominican ( i'm guessing) and he's definitely black as well as hispanic.

[Sheila Tone]

These have been around forever. They're called nuns.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

The Pope is promoting massive third world immigration into European countries (no doubt the Jews are behind this!):

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014738.html

Same old open-borders preaching from Pope John Paul III

[Aki_Izayoi]

"The term NAM is a peculiar one without much currency outside of America."

The term NAM doesn't have any currency when it is used outside of the "human biodiversity" blogosphere. I doubt anyone uses that word.

[Aki_Izayoi]

Is Diaz against immigration since it is against the interests of Hispanics that are already citizens and the immigrants who are already here? Anything the increases the supply of labor is not in the interests of labor.

[Melykin]

In Canada the Chinese and South Asian immigrants, who were mostly invited to Canada by Liberal goverments, tend to be socially conservative and vote against things like gay marriage.

[patrick]

Diaz is Puerto Rican. He is more black than most Puerto Ricans, so I would have assumed he was Dominican. The PRs I've known are triracials or Iberian types.
Diaz is also Pentecostal, a denomination that has long been established in the black community, and is growing in the Latino community.

[Russ]

I am really skeptical of the inevitable long-term GOP collapse for the following reasons.

1) Life spans are getting longer and longer. That means lots of old white people voting for practically forever.

2) All the new voters who voted for Barack Obama did so to be part of a historical event. That incentive no longer exists.

3) The Republicans have figured out that what they need is a Margaret Thatcher (or a non-idiot Sarah Palin) to capture the woman vote. Look for Carly Fiorina who's running for Senate in California. She's an attractive Stanford grad, former HP CEO who has no kids of her own to distract her. Plus, she's a breast cancer survivor to make her seem human.

4) The more minorities there are, the more white people vote Republican. It happens in every state. More minorities mean more republicans.

5) In the short term, a Supreme Court ruling has allowed states to require IDs at the voting booths. You'd be surprised how much this impacts democratic voters. Easily will shave 1 percentage point off of any democratic share of the vote.

6) The 2010 census will strongly shift the electoral map in favor of Republicans.

[John]

RE: Carly Fiorina

Carly has no natural base, and made no friends in Silicon Valley while she ran HP. I can just see the ads now, featuring former HP employees looking into the camera, talking about how Carly made her personal fortune by outsourcing their job to China. There is a particularly devastating quote from her about "no job being an American right" any more. It may be true, but truth won't get you elected. It's possible that Carly can win simply because Boxer is such an awful Senator, but that's the only reason.

[Russ]

John,

I don't know anything about Carly Fiorina beyond what I wrote but any attack ads on a woman would appear to be "picking on her".

By the way. I'm not some optimistic Republican. I vote democrat and am regularly shocked by how conservative this country really is.

[sestamibi]

"HS: In order for the Republicans to represent all whites, they will have to losen up on their ties to Christian whites." Much of what white Christians stand for used to be common-sense morality that had nothing to do with religion. I subscribe to that morality, and as you know I'm not a Christian.

Russ said:

I am really skeptical of the inevitable long-term GOP collapse for the following reasons.

1) Life spans are getting longer and longer. That means lots of old white people voting for practically forever.

First of all, that's not even true. Secondly, even if it were, no one is going to live forever or even "nearly forever".

2) All the new voters who voted for Barack Obama did so to be part of a historical event. That incentive no longer exists.

True enough, but there are still plenty of SWPL types out there, and their momentum will be with us for at least another generation.

3) The Republicans have figured out that what they need is a Margaret Thatcher (or a non-idiot Sarah Palin) to capture the woman vote. Look for Carly Fiorina who's running for Senate in California. She's an attractive Stanford grad, former HP CEO who has no kids of her own to distract her. Plus, she's a breast cancer survivor to make her seem human.

You've got to be kidding! Carly Fiorina was FIRED by HP for running the company into the ground! And the fact that she has no kids is a red flag to me and to large numbers of men who resent having to compete with those who in a prior time might have been our mates.

4) The more minorities there are, the more white people vote Republican. It happens in every state. More minorities mean more republicans.

What ARE you smoking? More minorities means less majority and fewer Republicans. Do the math!

5) In the short term, a Supreme Court ruling has allowed states to require IDs at the voting booths. You'd be surprised how much this impacts democratic voters. Easily will shave 1 percentage point off of any democratic share of the vote.

Wow, that's a lot!

6) The 2010 census will strongly shift the electoral map in favor of Republicans.

Maybe not as much as we would think. The growth areas are North Carolina, Florida (although not lately), Tennessee, and Georgia. The first two went for Obama, and Georgia is headed back to the Dems.

[rob]

"Fiorina was FIRED by HP for running the company into the ground!"

In her defense, she realized HP wouldn't be able sell ink cartidges for huge markups. She was right about problem, but but got the solution wrong(assuming there was a solution). Identifying problems puts her in the top 1% of politicians.

"What ARE you smoking? More minorities means less majority and fewer Republicans. Do the math!"

Dude meant that every NAM turns X white democrats into a Republicans. If X is larger than 1, more NAMs means more republicans winning, up to a point of course.

Whites in Mississippi vote more Republican than whites in Maine. Despite MS having more minorities than Maine, MS elects more republicans. His argument was that living around NAMs turns white Democrats into Republicans. He might be wrong, and living around NAMs is not causal, but it isn't crazy.

As the Democrats turn into the black and mestizo/indio party, whites who are currently Democrats will have less in common. Look at how white women reacted to (non-white?) representitives prohibiting federal funding for abortion.

I'm assuming the Stupak supporters were 'of color.' If they were white men, the media would have said so.

[rob]

Oops, meant wouldn't be able to sell ink cartidges for huge markups -forever-