Texas Turns Swing State, Hispanics Become White, and the Bolton Cover-Up
Texas Turns Swing State, Hispanics Become White, and the Bolton Cover-Up
Rant #1(Opinion)
Originally January 31, 2020
This is a rant that has to do with the idea that Texas will likely become a swing state in the near future, in part due to growing Hispanic populations. However, the White establishment may eventually absorb Hispanics to avoid becoming a minority population, much like they did with the Irish in an earlier era. And finally, some thoughts about the denial of John Bolton's witness testimony by the Senate and what that means.
It is derived and cleaned up from a conversation I had with a friend today. Other portions of this conversation, also rants similar to this in form, may be posted later.
'Whites will be a minority by 2040.' Or 2050, 2045, whatever; the headline may have a range of potential years but they all point to the same thing: that the Hispanic population of the United States is growing rapidly, so much so that Non-Hispanic Whites will comprise a minority in the next quarter-century. Or at least if the parameters of race and identity do not change, which I am almost certain they will. It is a matter of consolidating power and maintaining a thin majority so as to preserve the status quo.
Throughout history, the ruling class has budged slightly in order to preempt a full-scale paradigm shift. Prime example: late 1800s, Otto von Bismarck was a conservative leader of Germany, but he implemented a state-run pension/social security system. Why? He wasn't a progressive, but pragmatically, this calmed the push for wide-scale reform so that there wasn't as much fuel for revolution-level change brought on by the masses.
Essentially, appeasing the middle so that they feel like they either benefit from the status quo, or don't not benefit, or at the very least don't not benefit so much that they will actually do something about it. Now nobody quite 'decides' if Hispanics are counted and seen as White, that is a perception and it varies from person to person. And yet, the Census and all kinds of forms contain questions about race and ethnicity. The ethnicity part is important: already, Hispanic is not a race on our census--it is an ethnicity, which connotes a culture. As of now, the only two options are Hispanic and Non-Hispanic. Therefore, Hispanics also have to identify and be identified by a race: White, Black, etc.
The kids and grand kids of today's Latin American immigrants will grow up as Americans, not foreigners by allegiance nor by culture. So most of them will just by default be White suddenly...like this man I know. You look at him, and what do you think? Italian. He's got black hair, beard, White skin. Yet he is the son of Chilean immigrants. He speaks with no accent, grew up on alternative music and smoking weed living in the suburbs. He considers himself White. In the same way that if someone asked my heritage I would say "Irish, Sicilian, some German," that does not define my place in the social construct as much as simply being 'White' does.
Rant #1(Opinion)
Originally January 31, 2020
This is a rant that has to do with the idea that Texas will likely become a swing state in the near future, in part due to growing Hispanic populations. However, the White establishment may eventually absorb Hispanics to avoid becoming a minority population, much like they did with the Irish in an earlier era. And finally, some thoughts about the denial of John Bolton's witness testimony by the Senate and what that means.
It is derived and cleaned up from a conversation I had with a friend today. Other portions of this conversation, also rants similar to this in form, may be posted later.
'Whites will be a minority by 2040.' Or 2050, 2045, whatever; the headline may have a range of potential years but they all point to the same thing: that the Hispanic population of the United States is growing rapidly, so much so that Non-Hispanic Whites will comprise a minority in the next quarter-century. Or at least if the parameters of race and identity do not change, which I am almost certain they will. It is a matter of consolidating power and maintaining a thin majority so as to preserve the status quo.
Throughout history, the ruling class has budged slightly in order to preempt a full-scale paradigm shift. Prime example: late 1800s, Otto von Bismarck was a conservative leader of Germany, but he implemented a state-run pension/social security system. Why? He wasn't a progressive, but pragmatically, this calmed the push for wide-scale reform so that there wasn't as much fuel for revolution-level change brought on by the masses.
Essentially, appeasing the middle so that they feel like they either benefit from the status quo, or don't not benefit, or at the very least don't not benefit so much that they will actually do something about it. Now nobody quite 'decides' if Hispanics are counted and seen as White, that is a perception and it varies from person to person. And yet, the Census and all kinds of forms contain questions about race and ethnicity. The ethnicity part is important: already, Hispanic is not a race on our census--it is an ethnicity, which connotes a culture. As of now, the only two options are Hispanic and Non-Hispanic. Therefore, Hispanics also have to identify and be identified by a race: White, Black, etc.
The kids and grand kids of today's Latin American immigrants will grow up as Americans, not foreigners by allegiance nor by culture. So most of them will just by default be White suddenly...like this man I know. You look at him, and what do you think? Italian. He's got black hair, beard, White skin. Yet he is the son of Chilean immigrants. He speaks with no accent, grew up on alternative music and smoking weed living in the suburbs. He considers himself White. In the same way that if someone asked my heritage I would say "Irish, Sicilian, some German," that does not define my place in the social construct as much as simply being 'White' does.
And he likewise is by heritage Chilean, has immigrant parents who speak Spanish sometimes, but he has no real substantive connection to that country or culture. Also, there are some Italian-heritage people or others whose skin tone is darker than a chunk of Hispanics.
Incentives surely exist for Hispanics to join in with what is, let's face it, still the predominant group in the United States. Meanwhile, the White bloc of Americans contains a huge swathe (*cough*cough* half of Trump's base) who won't be okay with being the minority. So just like the Dutch, then the Germans, then Irish, then Italians, Poles, Czechs, et al, this wave of 'others' once rejected by the more integrated establishment majority will eventually be under the umbrella of "White." Future Americans will say "wait, really? People thought they weren't White when the first waves of Mexicans and Salvadorans arrived? Why? They spoke Spanish, a European language; are Catholics, a Christian denomination; most if not all of them are most if not all descendants of European Spaniards. Wtf?"
According to on Census data projection, by 2045, 24.6% of the population are projected to be Hispanic and 49.7% White (Non-Hispanic). Of the Hispanics in the last census, 53% identified as White, 36.7% as "Other." For simplicity, let's say that 89.7% all get lumped under White. All else equal, by 2045, that means a full 22.1% of the total population will be self-identified Whites (or classified as or just closest to White) and also Hispanic by current definition. But probably at least half of the people who would fall into the Hispanic category will have been born in the US--saying yes, my heritage may be Hispanic, but racially White and culturally by and large not-Hispanic: speaking English only or mostly English, having grown up here, etc. So if you add this hypothetical 11% of would-be 'Hispanics' who identify as White but not Hispanic, that means that Whites without the Hispanic label make up 60% of the population in 2045.
Those numbers are all very, very rough ballpark estimates, but still. And maybe most or many of these people will not want to assimilate into this 'White' category; the idea probably insults a lot of people, especially first and second generation American Hispanics.
Yet with those "now White" people feeling as part of the larger in-group, they then benefit from the status quo in many ways, and are thus more likely to want to preserve it or at least not oppose it with any particular enthusiasm. Herein lies the potentially unseen threat to Democrats down the road. Right now, the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly leans Democratic, voting for Hillary by a 2-to-1 ratio in 2016; well over half have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since at least 1976. Yet they do not vote for Democrats as overwhelmingly as Black voters do. Astonishingly, in 2016 Trump did not receive the lowest-ever share of the Hispanic vote.
A lot of US-born descendents of Hispanic immigrants might grow up to one day lean Republican. Some I know has a boyfriend who is the son of a Mexican immigrant who was himself born here, and grew up in the upper half or third of the middle class. He was in the military, sides with the police in brutality cases, loves Donald Trump, has that "poor people are lazy" mentality-- interestingly enough he even supports the border wall. Many more of his type will likely come along in the years ahead. As a side note, I do not want it to be misconstrued that I automatically associate Hispanics with 'Otherness' and assume they do not come from here, shocked by anything to the contrary--my thoughts on this work unlike Donald Trump who seems to believe that Jews are inextricably linked to a loyalty for Israel. But I digress.
Texas is unlikely to flip and vote blue in 2020, barring some sort of tectonic shift in public opinion. Given the fact that Trump is how he is, that he did what he did in Ukraine so clearly, and his approval still remains high in many states including Texas, it does not seem like something could happen there to change that dynamic in the next 9 months. A poll released on January 29 shows Trump beating Biden by 5, Warren by 7, Sanders by 3 and Buttigieg by 8 in Texas; another one released that same day shows the president defeating all four of those candidates by a margin of 14 to 20 points, with Biden doing the best against him. The second poll there lacks some credibility--according to FiveThirtyEight, "Data for Progress" got a B/C grade in terms of accuracy. Still, looking back further at the polling, it becomes apparent that Trump has a healthy lead over nearly all of the candidates in the state. Notably, the prospective race appeared closer in a way that had some Democrats ahead at times during the Spring through September, roughly the time between the Mueller Report's release and when Nancy Pelosi announcing the impeachment inquiry. Whether or not this shift has to do with impeachment is not clear. Regardless, the idea of a Democrat winning Texas doesn't appear off the table this time around.
Each election cycle, the Republicans' stranglehold wanes. The explosion of Hispanics in Texas plays a large role in the state becoming bluer. Also, waves of transplants from California and the Northeast--traditionally liberal, Democratic strongholds--have come to settle there, bringing their voting habits along. Those make up the two largest explanations. A growing grassroots anti-Trump coalition of White suburban women in that state has also popped up. Because of all this and more, the GOP will see its support in the lone star state lessen considerably.
Yet despite these demographic trends which point to the Democratic Party gaining a big lead on the national level, politics has too much volatility by nature to really forecast DNC hegemony. The Republicans stand to gain strength in the Midwest it would seem. But besides that, if their stances lose popularity in a way which prohibits their broader electability, they will eventually adjust their platforms to fit in the Overton Window.
In 1964, opposition to the Civil Rights Act was common among both parties, followed by many Republicans persisting with that view for a few decades after. Nowadays, no party or politician will directly express support for re-imposing formal segregation (though they will advocate for and implement subtle and disguised ways to carry on the tradition). From WW2 up through the 1960s, neither party truly challenged Keynesian economics and the welfare state framework in any meaningful way. Now that remains a central tenet of the GOP platform. So the parties will move around to capture more voters.
Also, American politics swings like a pendulum: when one president or party loses favor, when a problem occurs that isn't swiftly fixed by those in charge at the time, voters change their minds. Very commonly, a newly elected president will see the other party takeover one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections. Most recently, Trump saw this happen with massive Democratic gains in the House.
Other events specifically can influence these swings. Nixon was a Republican; Watergate happened. Though the GOP did not bend over backwards to keep him in office and deny everything at the very end [for most of the proceedings they denied wrongdoing and opposed impeachment], their party nevertheless took a beating in the 1974 elections: the Dems gained 49 seats in the House to make a grand total of 292 vs the 144 Republicans; in the Senate, Dems gained 4 seats at the expense of the Republicans, tallying up to 60 Democratic Senators. Then in 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter (D) won. Yet then the Iranian hostage crisis, coupled with the energy crisis and 'stagflation,' resulted in Carter losing the presidency in 1980 to Reagan, who won 489 out of 538 electoral votes.
The composition of the Congress has a little bit more complexity and yet consistency: post-Civil War era, Republicans perpetually dominated up until the Great Depression. Then, you see the Dems maintaining an overwhelming lead in most sessions from then up until the first midterm elections of Clinton's presidency. Since then, the Republicans have managed to usually win the House, while holding a majority in the Senate 8.5 out of 13 sessions in that same time period (in the 107th Congress, there was initially 50-50 tie, until Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP in May of 2001, thereafter caucusing with the Democrats as an independent). This period of Republican dominance in Congress might last through the 2020s decade, maybe a bit further, but the climate is poised to give the Democrats an edge in the near-ish future.
Another interesting component to these trends is that of the Supreme Court, and all federal judges for that matter. Because they have lifetime appointments, a conservative judge confirmed this year could serve on the bench for 30, 40 or more years. This means that a lag time exists, where the Judiciary takes a whole generation to adjust to the new electoral trends. Regardless of how many progressives may win seats in Congress and the Oval Office in the years ahead, Donald Trump has already appointed 186 of 795 currently serving federal judges-all in less than one term. So many hail from the ultraconservative Federalist Society. That could spell out the squashing of progressive measures and a right-leaning interpretation of laws for years to come. If Trump wins another term, he could possibly leave office having appointed half of the active federal judges in 2025. We may have a conservative court majority until Millennials are long retired, or at an age that they would have retired if the Supreme Court didn't abolish the social security system under a ruling by Trumpian Judges. While it probably won't go that far, it is alarming to speculate what kinds of things they could strike down in a few decades, even just a few short years...
Speaking of worrisome injustice within the upper echelons:
In the Senate, despite John Bolton literally indicating that he heard the president directly say what has been alleged in the impeachment, Republicans still refuse to call witnesses. Even if Bolton testified, it would not rally up 20 Republicans to vote for removal, but it would allow the American public to hear exactly what happened. By his account, anyway; this rabbit hole just goes on and on...
The idea that these Senators can try and justify their refusal to allow witnesses under these circumstances exposes the absurd level of bias and allegiance towards Trump instead of our democracy. The GOP's lack of even the vestige of fairness in this case, while appalling and quite disturbing even, could strategically benefit the Democrats. It not only exposes Trump's morbid corruption, but the entire party he has taken hostage, too. More and more will come out as the election approaches, which might dissuade some voters from Republican candidates altogether. However, the last 4 years have been filled with outlandishly surprising developments as much of the American public somehow not only forgives but actively supports what Trump does. The mechanics of manipulation, right-wing propaganda networks, fake news, gerrymandering, racial resentment, the way electoral votes and Senators are allocated, Republican cohesion and the Citizens United ruling have all contributed to the rise of some once sane (albeit disagreeable) Republicans moving to embrace this president. The amount of culpability of Trump himself is very debatable--somewhere between much and most.
How and why donald Trump managed to get a pass by the people as well as governing bodies despite doing so many decidedly wrong deeds will become the subject of study for historians, sociologists, et al. Does this represent a rare blip in the radar: a moment of weirdness where the stars aligned so to speak, or has trump now set a precedent for how the Leader of the Free World can get away with acting from now on? Because if it signals the latter, you can take the word 'free' out of the phrase right now.
Works Cited:
"US Minority White by 2045"
Demographics of Hispanics by Race
Texas Match Up Polls
Historical Party Division of Congress
Federal Judges and Presidents Who Nominated Them
Presidential Vote By Race (change the year at the end from 1976 to desired year; does not go back further than 1976)
Comments
Post a Comment