SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Fred Barnes: Fine, We’re The Party Of Whitey

PLANK NOVEMBER 16, 2012

Fred Barnes: Fine, We’re The Party Of Whitey

The palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?
Herman Melville, “The Whiteness of the Whale, Moby Dick, 1851.

It’s not a traditional America anymore....The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?
Bill OReilly, Nov. 6, 2012

————————————

Fred Barnes says the GOP should get over its hangup about being the party of white people. The white vote’s “share of the electorate is shrinking,” he writes in the Weekly Standard, “but slowly." 

Whites are the nation’s dominant voting bloc today and will be for many elections to come. In 2008, 74 percent of voters were white. That percentage might have held in 2012 as well, if millions of white voters from 2008 hadn’t stayed away from the polls last week.
 
In any event, the white vote is a Republican stronghold—and not because of racism. In 2008, Obama fared better with white voters (43 percent) than Democrat John Kerry had in 2004 (41 percent). In 2012, Obama’s white support fell to 39 percent.... Republicans shouldn’t feel guilty about their white support.

Actually, they should feel a little guilty. Barnes is being disingenuous when he suggests that white flight to the GOP since the 1960s has nothing to do with racism. True, it hasn’t entirely to do with it. But if you ignore the role that racism (particularly southern white racism) played in this historic migration you’re ignoring the, um, elephant in the room. Barnes is right that whites demonstrate no unique aversion to Barack Obama as compared to other Democratic presidential candidates of the post-civil-rights era. But that’s mainly because many white voters viewed the lot of them as coddling blacks and other minorities. Even Obama’s 39 percent of the white vote this year, while lower than what he got in 2008 and what Kerry got in 2004, is the same percentage Bill Clinton got in 1992. It also beats Walter Mondale’s 35 percent in 1984, Jimmy Carter’s 36 percent in 1980, and George McGovern’s 32 percent in 1972 (with the significant difference, of course, that Mondale, Carter, and McGovern all lost). The next person the Democrats nominate for president will likely be Caucasian, yet probably won’t poll appreciably better among whites than Obama did in 2012. He (or she) might poll worse.

Like thorough, unbiased reporting that challenges your way of thinking? Subscribe to The New Republic for $3.99/month.

Even so, trying to keep building electoral majorities around the white vote is a terrible idea for the GOP. Barnes notes the obvious problem, which is that the white share of the electorate is shrinking; according to current projections, whites will cease being the majority sometime around 2050. Perhaps Barnes figures that as the white majority continues to shrink, white people will become more like a minority, embracing identity politics and maintaining electoral coherence through a shared sense of exclusion from the mainstream. The rise of the Tea Party would seem to support that view.

But there’s something Barnes isn’t thinking about. It isn’t just the white proportion that’s changing. White people themselves are changing, too. They’re getting, for want of a better phrase, less white.

The Tea Party is going in an opposite, whiter direction. But the thing to remember about Tea Partiers is that they’re disproportionately oldbasically, they’re retirees and near-retirees who oppose all aspects of the welfare state except the part that goes to them through Social Security and Medicare. (As it happens, that’s most of it.) The 2012 results suggest that the Tea Party movement may already have peaked, but even if it hasn’t, actuarial science dictates that its members won’t be around for very long.

And it’s doubtful they’ll be replaced by younger versions of themselves. In 2008 Obama won 54 percent of all white voters age 18 to 29, even as he lost the broader white vote. In 2012 Obama’s share of 18- to 29-year-old whites fell to about 44 percent, but that’s still better than his 39 percent share of all white votes. One reason Mitt Romney was able to win the white youth vote, I’d guess—apart from the obvious reason that younger white voters (males especially) were disaffected by the state of the economy—is that after briefly flirting with a race-tinged message, Romney wisely backed off (at least in his national messaging).

Even vague appeals to white voters based on a common identity—appeals that work pretty well right now with older voters—just aren’t going to work with younger ones. And while older voters may feel perfectly comfortable inhabiting a GOP electorate that’s 90 percent white, I seriously doubt that younger white voters will. Young white people dwell in a world that’s much more multicultural than that of their elders—all that tiresome sermonizing they get in grade school seems to have a beneficial effect—and they’ll be disinclined, I think, to leave it behind when they enter the voting booth. They won’t want their party to be a white ghetto.

.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

Good point about many young white voters disinclined to be Tea Partiers. But there is an increasing number of libertarians among young people, too. Many of them love Ayn Rand's message that they as individuals are the center of the universe and that they, just as they are entering the big scary world of adulthood, can twist the future to their benefit with willful selfishness. That message will be strengthened as the human race becomes more like computers and other machines. Many young folks today feel tremendously empowered by computers and hand-held devices. And, if people can be influenced by multi-culturalism when very young, they can also be influenced by rat-race Randism when entering a new and scary world of competitors. Then we're back to the Makers and the Takers.

- magboy47.

November 16, 2012 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first thing that stands out to me from Barnes is that he's lumping all the women in with the men. If the Republicans want to enlarge their tent, they're going to have to go all the way to including their women-folk. I'm sure that'll give the Evangelicals fits, so we'll see if they cave to Evangelicals in 2014 or if the moderate Republican marches back from extinction.

- GSpinks

November 16, 2012 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Tea-Party Movement was a manufactured group from the Koch Brothers and Fox-News. I suppose you have to treat it as if it was genuine, but it came up overnight and it has mostly gone overnight. I suppose Fox-News could resurrect it overnight too, so we might as well continue to oppose it. But it wasn't "The Party Of Old White Men" that was rejected, it was the POLICIES of that party. Xenophobic, at least a little racist, anti-women (what WAS that about rape again?), not to mention offering 20% tax cuts while saying the deficit was a MORAL issue. To conclude from all of this that Republicans can only win if white-folks vote for them is a terrible mistake. Instead, they should conclude that the Tea-Party pulled the Republicans WAY too conservative. America needs an intelligent conservative party, but not the lunatic lemming disconnected from reality party we saw in the 2012 elections.

- AllanL5

November 16, 2012 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

122,710,000 people voted for Obama and Romney in 2008 it was 129,400,000, that means there were around 6,800,000 people who didn't vote (granted not all the votes are counted in this election as there are still provisional ballots that need to be tallied) and Romney got less votes this time than McCain did in 2008. Where is the remotest bit of evidence that these nonvoters would have voted for Romney? In fact in polls of registered voters Obama did even better. I find it extraordinary that Obama was able to give away nearly 7 million votes and still come away with a huge victory. How the hell can't Barnes see this? Getting 61% of white voters ain't squat if as a percentage of total vote it goes down 2 to 3% every Presidential cycle. I only wish I were 20 years younger so I could watch these bastards fade into irrelevance.

- blackton

November 16, 2012 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with what AllanL5 wrote above. I would add that it is unseemly for Noah and other liberal-left pundits to categorically heap scorn on non-colored and non-hyphenated Americans. That is just as racist as anti-black racism. Conservative white people also have a right to express their concerns in the political arena. We should listen to them and try to reason with them even if we don't always agree with them.

- amidut

November 16, 2012 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that Blackton nailed the point. Imagine the electorate instead as a universe of customers for your business. If you are bleeding 3% from your supposedly reliable customer base each time you introduce a new version of your (monopolising) product platform, that's very worrying. If a further 5% of customers simply opt out of the market, that's also very troubling. Before you know it, you have absolutely no basis for projecting any growth in your business and need to consider how you maintain the faith of investors. And that's before you even factor in the new product that your main competitor is cranking out and its broadening loyal customer base. That IS a forecast for a business, and a business model, headed for extinction unless it merges with an emerging brand or markedly reinvents itself. Republicans are supposed to be good at business. They should understand this.

- vst

November 17, 2012 at 3:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barnes was put on this earth to reassure the right that things are fine and that victory is always imminent. I've been watching him do this since at least '88. He has an air of confidence, both on TV and in his writing, that virtually never yields to mere actual events. In the spring of '92, this very magazine carried his cover story, "Why Clinton Can't Win." A couple weeks ago, his last pre-election headline in the Weekly Standard was "Why Romney Will Win." See a pattern there? If he's saying that the GOP has nothing to worry about from demographic change, then the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that the GOP has tons to worry about from demographic change.

- Jeff_Smith

November 17, 2012 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close