I wrote an article setting out the possibility of an emerging Democratic Party "permanent" majority which posited the possibility of an extended period of "one party rule' based on changing demographics.
This was based in large part on the emerging Hispanic voting bloc as a significant and growing force affecting the GOP's chances in the Electoral College. The article, with Electoral College maps is
AT THIS LINK. I think the past election justifies most if not all of the assumptions in the post.
I set out in this conclusion that although there may indeed be an effect on coming elections because of the Hispanic vote that over time the effect would be slowed, muted and then begin to have the opposite effect;
"So is there any hope for the conservative element in society to ever see the presidency again?
On a purely demographic basis I don't believe so, but on an economic basis there certainly is hope and again, it is the inexorable tide of history which will grind slowly but surely that will bring the eventual change.
Just as with the rise of a Black middle class, recent years have seen a growing number of conservative Black candidates and prominent political personalities, so will the improvement in living standards for the Hispanic population see a rise in the number of conservative Hispanics. Already two are being proposed as vice-presidents, Rubio and Martinez, and an increasing number will join these high fliers as rank and file members of the party.
As a growing and prosperous Hispanic middle class joins their similarly prosperous Black conservatives in the suburbs and Cain/West, Martinez/Rubio are joined by numerous others, the inexorable grind of American capitalism, which brings conservatism to individuals personal prosperity, will start turning the wheel of history back to the GOP-or its inheritor party."
I am delighted to see that, finally, another voice is echoing what I see as common sense based on an Adam Smithite view of the inexorable tide of history. Steven Malanga writing at City Journal AT THIS LINK
posted and article titled "More Hispanic Voting Myths" where he completely destroys the almost hysterical gloating by the left who see President Obama's re-election as roof positive of the inevitable decline of the GOP through the rise of the Hispanic population voting as a monolithic block.
After setting out some false premises by the left as regards the number of Hispanics who can vote in the population, Malanga states, absolutely correctly that at the end of the day it is income which determines an ethnic groups voting preferences in the main. Therefore, it is only natural that blue collar Hispanics would vote alongside blue collar Democrats (with allowance for the quality of a candidate. as not to include that statement would be paternalistic if not racist). His insight is right on the mark:
But in most cases, income is a far better determinant of voting patterns than race is (blacks are an exception, for historical reasons). The voting of ethnic groups evolves significantly as their incomes change. The ancestors of millions of today’s ethnic voters came to America in the great immigration wave of the early twentieth century and voted reliably Democratic for generations. Over the last 30 years or so, their descendants’ voting allegiances shifted significantly. Many were first attracted to the Republican Party by an optimistic presidential candidate who campaigned on a convincing pro-growth agenda. That won over voters in 1980; it would do so today, too.
Malanga says it better than I do with this sharp insight which utterly destroys the leftist meme. For leftists to present, as they do, the Hispanic voter as permanently in the Democratic Party camp without allowing for this inexorable change as incomes grow is paternalistic if not racist. That the meme is false will most certainly be proven over time:
Sure, as Latinos become more assimilated into American society, their participation rates may increase—but their voting patterns will probably change as well. One recent analysis warns that Latinos’ share of the population by 2050 will be so large as to permanently damage Republicans’ prospects. Such scenarios, however, assume a static electorate that, in 40 years, votes the same way it does today. If in 1940, say, I had constructed a similar chart projecting the growth rate of the country’s Italian-American population, based on its having a higher birthrate than that of the Anglo-American population, I could have issued the same warning to Republicans. Americans of Italian descent were voting heavily Democratic back then. By 1980, they had become a key component of the Reagan coalition.
Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.