“Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years,” say researchers at the University of Cambridge. “The UK and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent.”
No wonder. Certainly, America is a severely divided country. “Severely divided societies are short on community,” and “community is a prerequisite for majority rule,” argues Donald L. Horowitz, a scholar of democracy, at Duke University.
Having studied “constitutional engineering” in divided societies like South Africa, Horowitz has concluded,
In societies severely divided by ethnicity, race, religion, language, or any other form of ascriptive affiliation, ethnic divisions make democracy difficult, because they tend to produce ethnic parties and ethnic voting. An ethnic party with a majority of votes and seats can dominate minority groups, seemingly in perpetuity.
The Democratic Party has morphed into such a political organ. It’s responding to the fact that minorities in the United States will soon form a majority. This rising majority, as polling trends indicate, will speak in one political voice, for most immigrants to the United States are not from Europe and Canada, but from Latin America and Asia, south and east. And this cohort of immigrants is reliably progressive: It votes Democratic.
Likewise, the poor and the unskilled are well-represented among our country’s immigrant intake. It’s the way we roll. Poor immigrants favor the rearranging of the income curve in their new home.
The policy establishment preaches well-meaning pieties. Our ruling idiocracy, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, claims that all these energetically imported, fractious minorities will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles, and adopt our U.S. constitutional design and “our values.”
Democrats know better. Oh, the founding population, they expect, naïvely will hitch its existential survival to a political dispensation called liberal democracy.
The duped, historic majority of the United States willingly will cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional safeguards—for the abstractions—offered by democracy. This, Democrats know only too well.
Moreover, being pushover-passive on matters domestic, many legacy Americans are generally pro-immigration, the more exotic and culturally incongruent, the better. It gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling about ourselves. But while Americans don’t see race; the people they’re importing see nothing but race.
Take Indian-Americans. They’re a relatively new addition to the United States’ top-down, state-planned, multicultural mess of pottage. Most Indian-Americans have “arrived in America over the past two decades.” But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat.
By the Economist’s telling, “Capitol Hill, for example, is crammed with staff and interns of Indian-American heritage. They also appear to be ‘over-represented’ in academia, the media and other influential posts.” And, it is their indisputable habit to deploy and grow “informal networks, as well-connected Indian-Americans find jobs for each other’s offspring.”
Caste and ethnicity: It’s what the scrupulously candid English magazine is here hinting at, ever so genteelly. As many in the corporate world know all too well—once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power, he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion, talent be damned. Meek Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. They don’t seem to have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with such flinty duplicity.
This mercenary, extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a furious rate by the immigration-industrial-complex. Asians, aforementioned, are especially primed to seek, and aggressively extract, advantage from positions of power.
Take Kamala Harris. Although she “rarely mentioned the Indian side of her family while campaigning,” the senator’s mother migrated to California from Chennai, in southern India. Angry, anti-white, and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world—Kamala and those who share her way of thinking cannot be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a complete commitment to a constitutional design, in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit.
What about that seething Somali, Ilhan Omar, the representative from Minnesota? Who will be the loser in her brave, new, tribal America?
In the context of democracy and its discontents, Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise. No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities.
“The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world,” states Pew Research. “Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population,” says the American Community Survey (ACS). According to the Migration Policy Institute, “One in seven U.S. residents is foreign-born.”
As stated, the foreign-born are, for the most part, from alien, often-hostile cultures.
“A century ago, more than 80 percent of [America’s] foreign-born population came from Europe; now the figure is only 10 percent. . . . America is becoming less European,” bewailed the Economist in one issue, inexplicably.
“Inexplicably,” because this (superb) news magazine usually glorifies the ethnic transformation of European societies through exotic immigration.
Confusion born of contradictions peaks in the next issue, where Robert Guest, of the same open-borders Economist, lectures and laments that, “The simplest way to make the world richer is to allow more people to move. Yet the politics of migration has never been more toxic.”
It is hard to keep up with the protest movements under way around the world. … only the global unrest of the late 1960s was similar in scope.
After much dissembling, it is eventually conceded that the global unrest is engulfing “well-functioning democracies” big time, too.
In fact, “a related phenomenon [in the unrest equation] is the weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy—that losers, who may represent a majority of the popular vote, will accept rule by the winners until the next election. The millions on the streets do not accept the patience that trade-off demands.” (Emphasis added.)
“A weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy”? I wonder why?
Because flooding western democracies with non-western people has created societies without social capital; societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political process.
Western nation-states are now imperiled entities. Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within, and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities.
By using their police powers to swamp their already fractious populations with alien nations—where are the referenda on mass immigration?—governments have undermined existing ethnic balance in western democracies, and, with it, the fellow feeling so essential to democracy’s endurance.
Consider: Before Comrade Ted Kennedy’s coup of 1965, America was, by and large, a biracial nation. To quote author Ann Coulter, “From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable. . . . The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10 percent to 15 percent African American.” In other words, America was largely a biracial compact; never a multicultural “nation of immigrants.”
Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared, painful past.
Arguably, by opening the floodgates to mass, Third-World immigrants, the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America.