The Economic Nationalist

The Democratic party on display in Denver is a shambles and a disgrace, a tattered shadow of the once great party of Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy. Look at it. What has it to offer normal Americans except mere opposition to the Republicans?

The party could be campaigning on peace, except that it does not really believe in peace. It could be campaigning on health-care reform except that it dare not yet expose the radical, socialist overhaul it actually has in store for us. It could be campaigning on “entitlement” reform, but as a party it has no answers. And, near to this blog’s heart, it could and should be campaigning on tariff protection, except that it is an internationalist party that does not really believe in a prosperous, industrially strong, independent America capable of standing firmly on her own feet.

What we see in Denver is a party deep under the spell of cultural Marxism, determined to continue Gramsci’s and Marcuse’s long work of wearing traditional America down, promoting female careers and the consequent erosion of male responsibility and neglect of children, promoting government management of child rearing, promoting Spanish bilingualism, and promoting the erasure of America’s white majority; while reminding the often Catholic descendants of white immigrants incessantly of their differences from the descendants of the northwestern European Protestants who first carved the United States from a vast, barbaric continent. That the Democratic party is not actively promoting Islam this year is an anomaly but hardly a surprise, given its presumptive presidential candidate’s unfortunate middle name and the fact that Democrats actually want to win in November. But what other tenet of cultural Marxism is the party in Denver not actively insinuating?

That party is a freak show. I never thought that I would live to see the party of Andrew Jackson degenerate so far.

Some of you cannot see it yet. I understand this. The Democratic party is not a monolith and it is not a conspiracy. Some of the Democrats speaking in Denver have less insidious reasons to be Democrats, most especially because (like South Carolina’s Bob Conley) they heartily disapprove of what the Republican party has become. This is fair enough, but what is the Democratic message, as a party, other than, “Elect us! We’re not Republicans.”? What do the Democrats intend to do, not as isolated individuals but together as a party, if not generally to push the agenda of cultural Marxism (”change,” as they call it), and to complete the dismantling of the traditional American nation?

The Democratic party is losing badly among American whites, but the presidential race seems to be a dead heat. How can this be? Answer: whites are no longer 89 percent of the U.S. population as in 1960, but 65 percent and falling. Minority births, inexorably representing the U.S. demographic of tomorrow, are set to eclipse white births about 2011. Today’s creepy Democratic party is kept afloat by the burgeoning minority vote.

Now, U.S. minorities today come in many kinds. They are real people and they have their own problems. It is said that many of them work hard and undoubtedly this is true (though it is irrelevant: real Americans actually work hard, too). That most U.S. minorities have a hard time relating emotionally to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, to Gettysburg and Iwo Jima, should come as no surprise to us. However, you and I are going to have to wrap our minds around the proposition that, when it comes to the National Question, most U.S. minorities simply are not our friends. They are not going to be our friends. We can like and respect them as individuals while still appreciating that, as peoples, they have their own interests.

And they are swamping the country.

When you watch or listen to the remaining Democratic convention speeches in Denver these next two evenings, as you notice that this party makes no sense, remember that normal, white Americans oppose this party by large majorities. The historical party of Grover Cleveland and FDR has mutated into a foreign party in our midst. That it may rule over us from January 2009 is stark evidence of the slow murder of our Republic.

*  *  *

Now I am going to turn this around, and—I realize—most of you readers are not going to like it. I do not like it any more than you do, only I am determined to face facts as I see them.

The foregoing is exactly why, if you live in a swing state, you must seriously consider voting Barack Obama over John McCain. Don’t vote Democratic for Congress—that’s political suicide—but vote Democratic for the presidency.

The Republican party like all national parties in all Western countries is a somewhat dissonant collection of partially allied interests, but it is an unusually good party on the whole and, moreover, is the last best hope we’ve got to save this great Republic in some semblance of the image of the great men who founded her. If you elect John McCain then you are going to wake up the morning after the election with a patriotic hangover, asking yourself, “What have I done?”

You would regret it almost as soon as you did it, would you not? You must not send Mr. McCain to the White House.

The demographic balance in the U.S. is tilting fast, but it is not wholly against us yet. The year 2010 will be a census year. Its reapportionment must reflect white flight and will favor Republicans, but we can take maximum advantage only if we have won state legislative elections broadly in 2010. This among other reasons is why we need to think this through now. Mr. McCain is an honorable man but he simply is not on our side. Where does electing Mr. McCain lead us, after all, except to a white minority within four decades and to the permanent loss of the America for which our forebears have fought and bled?

Think this through. There is no longer any safe path forward for traditional America, only a choice of dangers. Which is the more dangerous: to let an openly left-wing progressive like Barack Obama into the White House or to let an heroic, patriotic, confused, cocksure, trigger-happy quasi-lunatic in, a false conservative like John McCain? Can we really afford to deliver the Republican party into the hands of the McCainiacs?

The Republican party is our Big Gun. It is heavy. It is strong. It packs a powerful punch. Can we really afford to disassemble our Big Gun and to stow it in Mr. McCain’s G.I. pack?

We don’t have another Big Gun. The Republican party is it, but it’s a good one.

There is real danger in an Obama presidency. None of us denies this. The question is not whether there will be danger, but whether we can fight the danger (we can) and whether we will unilaterally disarm in the face of it (we will, if we elect Mr. McCain). We must face the reality that the two-party system has an inherent dynamic that tends to rotate the two parties cyclically through power and opposition. The longer the Democrats are kept out, the stronger the political pressure to force them in. They’re going to get in soon, no matter what we do. Except by armed insurrection, we cannot stop the Democrats from taking their turn any more than King Canute could stop the tide, but we can do political judo: we can pull them in and then use their own momentum to usher them out and under to start the next political cycle.

The Democratic party on display in Denver is patently discreditable. This is no longer the party of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Those days are long gone. Among American whites, the Democratic party has no enduring strength any longer. There is no reason 2010 and 2012 should not belong to American traditionalists, provided that we have the foresight to think ahead in 2008.

For, setting Mr. Obama aside, is there any reader that does not believe in his heart that a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the nation?

Let us not go that route. Let us vote Obama.

HJH

[P.S. It is regrettably necessary in this unreasonable era to point out, if only in a postscript, that this blog and the traditionalist, conservative movement it represents do not deprecate the support of the few U.S. minorities like Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Ezola Foster, Ward Connerly, Paul Gottfried and Clarence Thomas that stand genuinely on our side. Goodness knows, we need all the support we can get. But those few individuals are exceptional, and they are always going to be exceptional, human nature being what it is. If we have not yet learned that no American renaissance can be built on the phantom hope of broad minority support, then we have yet learned nothing. —Howard—]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am and is filed under Election 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.