Elections

Rigging Elections

October 19, 2016

Multiple Pages
Rigging Elections

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.

That the Democrats want ever more non-Americans allowed into America so that these immigrants and their descendants can tip American elections toward permanent Democratic rule is something that Democrats are happy to discuss, just so long as Republicans admit that if they aren’t supportive of the Democrats’ scheme, then Republicans deserve their upcoming fate.

The Democrats have enjoyed inviting the more narcissistic and naive GOP politicians, such as Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Marco Rubio, to join them in promoting the Democrats’ attempts to rig future elections via “comprehensive immigration reform.” As the Democrats point out, the only way Republicans can prove to the onrushing millions of foreigners that Republicans aren’t irredeemable, racist haters on the wrong side of history is by helping the Democrats bring in even more future Democrats.

The use of immigration policy to bias elections has a long history. For example, Ariel Sharon largely destroyed the prospects of Israel’s once great Labor Party by inviting a million Russians to Israel, where they became his fervent supporters.

“It took Democrats a while to figure out that their grand strategy ought to be to give up on persuading the American people to elect them and instead for them to elect a new people.”

Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career. When it turned out instead to open the floodgates to the Third World, in 1990 Kennedy pushed through another immigration act to bring in more Kennedy-voting Irishmen, the diversity visa bill. Once again the Irish weren’t terribly interested, but Kennedy’s legislation set up chain migration beachheads in America for dozens of other nationalities.

It took Democrats a while to figure out that their grand strategy ought to be to give up on persuading the American people to elect them and instead for them to elect a new people.

For example, in the 1990s the Clintons often talked like Trump on immigration. Bill orated in his 1996 State of the Union address:

But there are some areas that the federal government should not leave and should address and address strongly. One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.

President Clinton had earlier appointed a formidable black lesbian orator, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX), to chair his commission on what to do about immigration. She reported back that immigration was bad for blacks and other poor Americans, and that not only should illegal immigration be cracked down upon hard, but legal immigration should be cut substantially.

Tragically for the American people, Jordan died of cancer in early 1996, stilling her authoritative and independent voice. Congressional Republicans turned their backs on her restrictionist policy recommendations, which would have been bad for the GOP’s Cheap Labor obsession.

Up through 2000, the pro-Democrat New York Times editorial board opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, because it would be bad for working Americans’ wages. In contrast, the pro-Republican Wall Street Journal editorial page had been promoting a Constitutional amendment reading “There shall be open borders” since 1984, because it would be bad for working Americans’ wages.

It’s fascinating to reread Democrats debating immigration a couple of decades ago because the intellectual quality of their arguments was so much higher back then. The “huddled masses” schmaltz tended to be a neoconservative Republican specialty in the later 20th century, while Democrats asked each other hardheaded questions about how more immigration would help blacks and union members.

Why, then, did immigration become America’s sacred cow in the 21st century?

For one thing, immigration naturally tends to be a political perpetual-motion machine. It’s easy to start off by saying that it’s no problem to let in a few members of Nationality X because there are so few of them in America, so there’s nothing to worry about. But soon politicians are feeling that it’s impossible to stop more of them from coming because there are already so many of them here.

Second, the GOP put up such little resistance to more immigration that liberals had to move left to protect their standing. For example, when George W. Bush got to the left of the NYT editorial board in 2001 on immigration, they finally flipped toward favoring amnesty. Similarly, by Sept. 10, 2001, Bill Clinton was telling Australian tycoons that he believed in “the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world” (much as Hillary told Brazilian plutocrats in 2013 that she favored “hemispheric” “open borders”).

Third, the Democrats slowly figured out that mass immigration was the easy road to Chicago-style one-party rule.

In 1997, Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein published an article in National Review, “Electing a New People,” laying out a numerical model of how the GOP was destroying itself by tolerating high immigration. They were among the first to point out what now seem like obvious truths—such as, that the GOP is in effect the white party, so the smaller the white percentage of the electorate in the 21st century, the worse the GOP does.

Looking back from almost two decades later, my guess is that Democrats took that groundbreaking article much more seriously than Republicans did. Democratic strategists began to publish their own version of the Brimelow-Rubenstein theory, such as the 2002 book by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, The Emerging Democratic Majority.

The more Democrats realized they could obtain permanent hegemony not by winning over the American people, but by repeopling America, the more they denounced rational inquiry into the merits of immigration. If you read the WikiLeaks transcript of what Hillary secretly told the smart guys at Goldman Sachs about immigration policy for $225,000, you’ll notice it’s just the same lowbrow tripe you hear everywhere else about how immigration is who we are.

In contrast, denouncing the rigging of elections through mass immigration has a noble history in American intellectual life. The first great work of social-science theory in American history, Benjamin Franklin’s 1754 anti-immigration pamphlet Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, which inspired Malthus and Darwin, originated as a protest against the Proprietors’ party, which was run by William Penn’s heirs in London, rigging elections in Pennsylvania by importing German immigrants to vote against Franklin’s self-government party.

The questions today are similar to those in Ben Franklin’s time: Do American voters have the right to independence and self-rule, to determine who is let in and who is not, to have borders?

Or is America to be a colony of the world?

SIGN UP
Daily updates with TM’s latest


Comments



The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.