Party Next Time … As immigration turns red states blue, how can Republicans transform their platform? … When historians look back on Mitt Romney's bid for the Presidency, one trend will be clear: no Republican candidate ever ran a similar campaign again. For four decades, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan through the two Bush Presidencies, the Republican Party won the White House by amassing large margins among white voters … Tuesday, Romney won three-fifths of the white vote, matching or exceeding what several winning Presidential candidates, including Reagan in 1980 and Bush in 1988, achieved, but it wasn't enough. The white share of the electorate, which was eighty-seven per cent in 1992, has steadily declined by about three points in every Presidential election since then. At the present rate, by 2016, whites will make up less than seventy per cent of voters. Romney's loss to Barack Obama brought an end not just to his eight-year quest for the Presidency but to the Republican Party's assumptions about the American electorate. – New Yorker
Dominant Social Theme: The GOP needs to woo Hispanics by promising them government goodies. It's the only way.
Free-Market Analysis: This New Yorker article provides us with a splendid power elite meme and sub-meme. The dominant social theme is clearly that a political party must "woo" a specific ethnic group by promising them a share of government largesse.
The subdominant social theme is that the GOP won't survive if it doesn't do this. The New Yorker used to be a bit more subtle about its overtly authoritarian arguments. Not anymore.
It's really a travesty of an argument. First of all, "Hispanics" is a made-up term. Anyway, there are plenty of so-called Hispanics in the US and they don't all speak alike. Second, many might be insulted if told their loyalty was for sale to whomever could extract the most government cash and services. Nonetheless, there is a third part to this that we will get to toward the end of this article.
First, another excerpt:
Like the G.O.P.'s contradictory language on immigration in its party platform, the two strategies for courting Hispanics co-exist uneasily. The debate in Texas is about to seize Washington. Obama has strongly indicated that he intends to see immigration reform—likely some version of the so-called dream Act, which would offer a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants—passed in 2013. Before the election, Obama told the Des Moines Register that he was "confident" he could get it done, because "a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community." Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the Republican senator from Texas whom Cruz is replacing, told me after the election, "A compromise on the dream Act should be easy to get done now."
If Romney had won, his party would have been able to figure out this vexing issue from a position of strength. Instead, it will have to respond to the Democrats, who are certain to play the tensions within the G.O.P. One person who understands this is [Ted] Cruz [now the senator-elect from Texas]. When we arrived in Austin, at the end of our trip together, he revealed his simple recipe for success.
"I think every case in litigation and every argument in politics is about the fundamental narrative," he said. "If you can frame the narrative, you win. As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it is fought. And it is won by choosing the field of terrain on which the fight will be engaged." For now, the field belongs to Obama and the Democrats, and the storyline on immigration is theirs to lose.
You see? We are not alone in proposing that the modern narrative is one of directed history. It's the reason people want to be novelists and movie directors. If you can tell a story in a believable way you can accrue a lot of personal and professional power. You can even "change the world" in minor ways.
Those who can properly purvey a narrative are sought after and are in demand. We've tried to explain that the power elite realigns society in this way, via fear-based promotions.
The 'Net is so important – what we call the Internet Reformation – because it interferes with the globalist messaging. The story being told by the power elite about the inevitability of "one world" has been decimated by Internet information running counter to this theme.
This is actually the reason the elites are now evidently and obviously running so many false flags trying to confuse or discredit the larger message of truth and freedom that electronic technology has helped purvey.
The most powerful concept of all is one we call "directed history." First the elites in question figure out what they want to accomplish (a way to further globalism) and then they set out to accomplish it. In the case of the debate taking place now over the GOP's supposed future, the argument is actually aimed at a far broader goal of establishing a North American Union.
Now, it is true that many Hispanics are "conservative" culturally and don't seek a lot of government support. But that is not how the argument will be framed. The idea is that the GOP itself will be prevailed upon to offer up a variety of government-based inducements to Hispanics to curry favor and gain votes.
At the same time this is going on, federal legislation will be passed favoring Hispanics, especially Mexicans. None of this may be necessary, but this is how the narrative will be constructed. Finally, when the narrative is sufficiently energized, moves will be made to enact at least part of the North American Union.
It is politicians that will do the so-called heavy lifting. They will use previously prepared narratives to try to combine certain elements of the US and Mexico. This is already going on in Canada (the third element of the NAU) where a "constitution free" zone has been declared in a broad swath of land between the two countries.
Here both Canadian and US authorities operate in an effective no-man's land of authoritarian jurisprudence. A merger has been effectuated between the two countries though no one in the mainstream media seems to have noticed yet.
This, then, is how directed history works. It creates a narrative – not one that is necessarily true. It then elaborates on that narrative and makes it look logical by having certain actors respond in certain ways.
In this case, both political parties are being set up to promote various kinds of Hispanic legislative engagements. Eventually, the legislation will be used not just to justify (perhaps) a Republican comeback but also reciprocal legislative moves on behalf of Mexico.
Again, the initial narrative need not be accurate in any feature. But when it is established via the mainstream media it can be used to justify political action. At every step, the narrative is employed to justify larger legislative moves that bring us closer to the elites' desired goal of global governance.
The GOP does not need to provide government bribes to Hispanics. The GOP was actually on the way to electing libertarian conservative Ron Paul to run as its presidential candidate. But that emergent trend was snuffed out by violence and Draconian GOP rule changes. Now we are being told that the only way the GOP can prove attractive to voters is to grant them legislative beneficences.
We would offer up that freedom is the most precious resource of all, and what people really want. If the GOP recasts itself as a party of minimal government and maximum (anti-war) freedom, it would sweep the proverbial boards. But that reality isn't conducive to power elite internationalism.
Instead, another narrative is being invented … and then another. Finally, the entire tottering mythos will be used to justify yet more government globalism in the shape of the NAU. This is how the elites achieve their goals, by structuring justifications for directed history that can be logically acted on.
The GOP does not have to "appeal" to Hispanic voters. If it simply stood for more freedom and less government interference, this would probably be enough to make it a most attractive political party, even to many Hispanics. But this is not the narrative the power elite wishes to purvey. So they won't. And neither will the New Yorker.