Disgraced former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman warns that President Trump may trigger a “race war.” But that war is already underway, and the Left fired first, emboldened by the poison of identity politics. That the Left is waging war on America in explicitly racial and ethnic terms is not something that requires an esoteric reading of their intentions; it is a naked expression of their policy, thinly veiled by gilded “diversity” rhetoric.
I have nothing to gain from white supremacy, but there is no doubt that I will be accused of dog whistling to Democrats who like pointy white hats—though there is no reason to believe that this disclaimer will ward off criticism. Still, this needs to be said, so if I may borrow (and modify) from Agathon: “Of this alone, even god is deprived, the power of making things that are [true] never to have been.”
Superficial Diversity and Deep Divisions
“America’s racial future is California’s present,” writes Ezra Klein. In a candid column, Klein explains how the Left plans to transform the country as we know it by way of a massive demographic shift brought on by mass immigration:
In 2013, America passed a milestone. A majority of infants under 3 were nonwhite. The Census Bureau thinks the whole nation will follow by 2045. In most states, white deaths now outnumber white births. And it’s not just race. The percentage of foreign-born Americans is nearing a record high. The percentage of nonreligious Americans has been rising for decades.
Klein believes “that California reflects a successful navigation of that diversification of a country,” which really means transforming a conservative state into a “progressive” one. So, let’s examine that claim, one with which Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, interviewed by Klein, finds himself in agreement.
California is “diverse,” but only in that superficial way that diversity actually works; that is, “diverse” on the face of it, but heavily segregated along racial and ethnic lines in reality. We see this reflected in Mayor Garcetti’s home turf.
Using data compiled by the Los Angeles Times, we find that although Los Angeles County is 52 percent white and consists of 265 neighborhoods, 61 percent of these neighborhoods are greater than 66 percent white, while 131 are less than 33 percent white—or “not diverse” because of the strong majority/minority dichotomy. In fact, according to Times’ data, just 73 neighborhoods are between 33 percent and 66 percent white, or “diverse,” where there’s a slim racial majority or plurality.
Like so much about California, the “diversity” celebrated by Klein and Garcetti looks good only from afar, because Los Angeles is actually segregated along clear ethnic and racial lines—the units of segregation are just smaller than the city itself. Neighborhoods end up ethnically homogeneous and this pattern appears in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and elsewhere.
It would therefore be more accurate to say that California reflects a successful Balkanization, and this is the “future,” if such a bleak outlook can be called a “future.” This is what the Left has in mind for our country. But this Balkanization is by design, and it matters little if any individual useful idiot realizes it. Throughout history, Samuel P. Huntington reminds us, “imperial and colonial governments provided resources to minority groups and encouraged people to identify with them, so as to enhance the government’s ability to divide and rule.” Held up to this light, “diversity” becomes shorthand for divide and conquer.
But in order to conquer, the Left must raise an army, one that is alien or can be made hostile to American history, traditions, and culture.
The Cynical Ploy of the Diversity Democrats
The Left maintains a generous welfare-state for legal and illegal immigrants because they understand that they will receive support and votes in exchange. This is a vote-buying scheme that has its roots in the New Deal.
John T. Flynn wrote that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a man always interested “in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes,” and eventually “no political boss could compete with him in any county in America in the distribution of money and jobs.” Having abandoned blue-collar whites in America, the Left has merely repurposed this old scheme for use on minorities, specifically legal immigrants and illegal aliens—a voting bloc that they can quite literally import.
Spencer P. Morrison has illuminated this fact in a carefully researched piece on immigrant voting patterns, showing that “immigrants vote Democrat by a ratio of at least 2-to-1, and this gap is widening.” This data, Morrison notes, “is supported by a study from Pew Research, which finds that non-white Americans vote Democrat by a roughly 3-to-1 ratio.”
Ultimately this leads us back to identity politics, “insofar as the vast majority of immigrants since the 1965 [Immigration and Naturalization Act] are not white.” As to why this is, the cultural explanation is perhaps the best one. That is, many Latin American and Asian countries, where the bulk of all immigrants have origins, are founded on Marxist precepts and feature heavily centralized governmental power. The government is the provider, the government is your friend, father, and mother.
The Left accordingly has shifted its politics in the United States to reflect those in the countries from which immigrants originate, while eschewing assimilation into a traditional American culture characterized by a deep skepticism of government power and centralizing forces. Consistent with this, the Democratic Party and its legion of leftists have championed the idea that “we all belong to the government,” while simultaneously denouncing nationalism and patriotism.
Faced with such fearful odds, if patriots intend to prevail they can do so only by taking up the weapons that are immediately available. This is because the Left is only formidable for as long as the Right hesitates to unify behind a coherent ideology. It becomes necessary, then, to let go of the “conservative” that was forged in the flames of the Cold War, having by now suffered an irreparable neoconservative fulul—blunting the blade.
For how can “conservatives” hope to gain ground and hold it, when our “gladiators” have been appointed to us by the opposition? Can we really hope to fight and win by taking the field beside The Weekly Standard and the National Review? Should we count on Bret Stephens and Bill Kristol? Those who, like so many other “conservatives,” have shown time and again that they are more concerned with their status as professional pundits and policing the boundaries of the right-wing mind, keeping it curiously close to liberal sensitivities, than they are with fighting and winning. The so-called “principled” course of action in the culture war means inevitable defeat, and, to quote Patton: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.”
If patriots should prevail, they must forge an identity politics of their own to counter the Left, whose identity politics are based, primarily, on race and ethnicity. Ours should not be an identity based in an obsolete “conservatism,” as prescribed by New York Times-appointed champions, but rather should it be based in the American identity. Such an American identity politics would by default be genuinely conservative and rooted in the culture that is under sustained assault from both the Left and their neoconservative auxiliaries.
With a president who has remarkably united once disparate groups, and on the doorstep of a leftist revolution, the time is now or never to embrace the identity politics of the American tribe.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact email@example.com.
Photo Credit: Cory Clark/NurPhoto via Getty Images