City Journal Spring 2014

Current Issue:

Spring 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Michael Knox Beran
A Cautionary Election Note « Back to Story

View Comments (13)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 13 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Why is that many of the wall street pundits who vote republican were FOR the stimulus? Big business interests were not against this stimulus, to the extent that one can see what they are actually for or against. In terms of deficits, Medicare is a huge factor. Who dramatically expanded medicare to cover presription drugs, George W Bush? Who profits from government largesse? Big pharma.
The little guy republicans are against overspending but the fat cat republicans are only against higher taxes. They like deficits, although they wont admit it openly. Hey, Wall Street SELLS all those govt bonds. No deficit, fewer bonds, lower commissions!
Republicans as a party cannot continue to be successful if they diverge from their conservative, religious and libertarian bases and drift to the left, nor if they allow excessive illegal immigration -- much of which happens to be Hispanic -- to continue uncontrolled and increasing.
Isn't the reason Angle and O'Donnel lost is not because they didn't "embrace" minorities. It is because establishment Republicans didn't vote for them. The establishment Republicans despise the Tea Party types and only want them to shut up and vote for the candidate the party leadership wants.

Of course, doing that will get more amnesties and anti-white policies, but who cares when you assume you can hide in your gate guarded community.
I agree with Mr. Beran's every point, and I see worse failings in the Republican variety of American conservatism. Thus far they have evinced no capacity for including those from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds in their effort to save the American political heritage. If Republican conservatives believe in the potential of anyone other than white people, acculturated Europeans, and the rare black American to grasp the responsibilities and blessings of liberty, I've not heard or seen it. John Boehner is a fine, upstanding sentimentalist from the middle class of middle America, but I cannot believe he has any faith in the inherent saneness of people unlike himself. I do not believe he can inspire Americans or lead them. He and the many others like him in the conservative vanguard are infected with the same notion of their superiority that defines the 'ruling class' on the left. They will not attract the faith and loyalty of either Hispanics or, least of all, black Americans, all of whom, given their self-demeaning views, are likely to continue to be purchased with socialistic cadeaux, however damaging those poisonous gifts may be to their progeny. It may be that only Sarah Palin has the energy and faith in people needed for inspired leadership, and she will be destroyed by her conservative rivals with the glad help of the main-stream press. After a century of parasitic leftists gnawing at its innards, despite this loud electoral raspberries, America's future remains in every respect dim.
Obama is an anti-white socialist (Marxist-Multiculturalist). He clearly resents white people, as do the 96% of blacks who not only voted for him in 08, but STILL (?) voice support for him today, according to a recent poll printed in The Wall Street Journal. Latinos support Obama by 68%.

Why do we white conservatives keep pandering to minorities? In the 80s I told all and sundry that mass (legal) immigration would be the suicide of conservatism, the GOP, and finally the Founders' America.

Why don't we just STOP THE IMMIGRATION INVASION NOW??! This is the best time ever, given record unemployment (yes, immigrants on balance hurt the economy, but my point is the rhetorical power of unemployment, not the economic facts, which are murky).
we voted out the republicans two years ago for a crappy econonmy spending and the war and now we vote out the dems for basically the same thing so now if things get better the reps will take credit but alot is the same thing as usual with both just trying to up one another vs . actually taking care of business not their business and political ties. Santa Maria Homes For Sale

Mr. Beran,

I think "Latinos" have figured out that which you allude to in your 2nd-to-last paragraph. That is, why come "here," if "here" is like "there."

I believe you, and the Dem's, make the same mistake of assuming these people are some sort of rigid block and that, unless we "not ignore" these people (which is French for capitulation on amnesty) they will vote monolithically for Liberals.

Citing a recent PEW Fox report: "In 2007, 50% of Latinos surveyed told the Pew Hispanic Center that the growing number of illegal immigrants was a positive force for the existing Latino population. In a Pew survey released Thursday, that number had plummeted to 29%."

What to derive from this? Well, it would seem that what was a net-sum-game in 2007 now promises a return of 71% support from Hispanics re: illegal immigration.

This means that the same conservative factors that favor the rest of us can be used to garner Hispanic support without the need to pander to them through the destructive tactic of supporting illegal immigration.

This is a plus.
The Latino strategy might be dubbed: "You think you've got a southern strategy? I'll show you a southern strategy."
Every day now the obamaista's efforts to destroy our economy are making progress. Yesterday the
Federal Reserve contributed to the mayhem by continuing the non stimulus, stimulus.

I haven't read the "Case against Fiscal Stimulus". But even the unwashed masses, like myself, can understand you don't borrow your way out of debt.
I think most conservatives know that this is far from over. Obama will be hard to beat in 2012 no matter what. The one thing he does do well at is campaigning. He will campaign harder then ever in 2012. He started this morning unfortunately.
this article would seem to illustrate the appeal of Vice President Marco Rubio in 2012....
One thing they seem to leave out of the equation is that none of the illegal or temporary alien latinos are able to vote. Some have family here whom they might strongly influence, to be sure. BUT the VOTING latinos paid dearly for their citizenship, having worked hard to get here, and prosper to the point they are now. Many of them resent the undocumented illegals, and would loke to see them sent back home.... as they not only dilute the available employment/business climate, they give the legal citizens a bad name by association. The tide is rising against ALL latinos, which is sad as those who've paid their dues and are here fully are definitelyb a benefit to ALL of our society.

As the present administration persues its present course of amnesty and full acceptance for the illegal pretenders, standing against those states (Arizona and Missouri, so far) with stronger laws to send them back home, things will come to a head. I rather believe Mr. O is in for rather a shock as he persues this, and realises, hopefully too late, the backlash against HIS socialist immigration policy is strong, and will not go away. He is deluded if he things the majority of American citizens will favour unguarded borders, amnesty for lawbreakers presently in residence, and an easy path to full citizenship, particularly on a "multiculturalist" basis. I rather home this delusion comes to his own realisation his plans are bankrupt, and that he truly IS finished. Time to send that pretender back to the 'hood in Chicago's South Side..... withOUT his armed security or even his own defensive weapon, as current Chicago law mandates.
Labeling normal political speech as "divisive rhetoric" is a cheap way of making an unsupported point. Citing the opinion of one economist for the laughable proposition that President Obama's policies represent a "revolution" designed to destroy the American Dream is absolute lunacy.