In the entry and the comments following, the view is expressed by John Savage and others that majority America, white America, is already history and that electing Obama would merely be another verification of this fact, rather than a turning point towards our loss of majority power.
"I hate to burst the bubble of those who do not yet believe it, but “white” leadership, if we mean rule in the interests of whites, was already “dethroned” decades ago. “America’s past, and its very founding,” too, were “repudiated” long ago by all those who share in power – in actuality if not in rhetoric. Most conservatives fail to understand the extent to which “whites” do not actually rule in this country."
I can't completely disagree with that; we have a de facto rule by minorities in this country and have had for some time. But under our system as it was set up in the beginning, the majority will is supposed to rule and the will of the people is, at least on paper, still the governing power in this country.
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." - Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." - Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809
"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." - Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
There are many other such quotes from Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers.
So even if we can acknowledge rather cynically that we the majority have in fact been deposed from our rightful place, should we simply shrug and acquiesce in this unjust state of affairs, or should we not make an issue of it? Jefferson clearly states in a number of places that a government which does not acknowledge the will of the majority, is no longer a government and is no longer legitimate according to our founding principles.
I have noticed, when I bring this situation to people's attention, the reaction is usually one of massive indifference. Why? Have we become a passive and resigned people? Why is there not more righteous indignation at the fact that our system has been de facto overthrown? Do we care so little these days for our republican system and for our rights therein?
I will grant that we certainly are in danger of losing our primacy in this country, but can we say with absolute certainty that it is already lost? I am not 100 percent convinced that such is the case, the more I think about it. We have the authority that rightfully belongs to the majority, and if we are weak it is because we are holding back and refraining from using our rightful power. Suppose tomorrow we all refused to go along with the political correctness that is in effect paralyzing us. Would the government be able to compel us all to go along, or would passive resistance and non-compliance be enough to stop the PC juggernaut? How can the government or any of the other powerful forces in our society compel us to cooperate in our own dispossession? It is happening, I say, because we are letting it happen.
And it might just be that the idea that the die is cast, that we have already lost, is further likely to enervate and discourage us.
We are definitely on the ropes, I admit, but are we down for the count? Only if we lie helpless, telling ourselves it's all over. Another argument that is being advanced in various places, including, implicitly, on the thread at BNWW, is the idea that ''worse is better'', and that since we are already deposed, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from having Obama elected. I say that that notion, that we are already powerless and that we have nothing therefore to lose, is far from evident. Have we ever really tried to reassert our strength, or are we simply giving up and saying 'let Obama win' because we think ''resistance is futile"? The idea that Obama's election would somehow galvanize people is one that I don't quite buy. Everyone who espouses the idea that Obama being elected, and black people being in the catbird seat will awaken the masses seems to take it on faith that people will begin to connect the dots and see how our liberal racial policies were wrong, and that we need to change our approach. But will this happen? What is the evidence which leads to that conclusion?
I remember the early days of the civil rights revolution. I remember seeing in the newspapers the pictures of Little Rock High School being integrated at gunpoint. I suppose I was too young then to understand the import and the implications of that action; I was only in grade school then. I was, however, old enough to find the picture of armed troops at a school rather unsettling. Integration was forced on Americans at the point of a gun. The message was clear: we were to get with the program, and force would be used against those who did not comply when ordered. Where is the right to freedom of association here? Where was the will of the majority? The consent of the governed? And our right to free speech began to erode away over the ensuing decades as an oppressive political correctness aimed to stop our expressing our disagreement with the new racial regime.
Did this traumatic event galvanize the supposedly 'racist' or racially conservative Americans back in 1957? For the most part, with some sporadic resistance to it, the 'peaceful' integration proceeded. Americans began, grudgingly at first, but gradually more willingly, to accept the new order of things, and now it has come to the point where we stand poised to be a minority in our own country. Those of you who were alive back in 1957, could you have imagined the Obama phenomenon back then? Could any of us have imagined a black politician, a relative unknown, becoming the center of a personality cult, with swooning and weeping white followers? I would have thought such an idea was absurd and implausible back then. But change happens gradually, incrementally, without our being really aware that it is happening.
How would Obama's election, even if he adopts a militantly pro-black agenda, galvanize or even awaken majority Americans? Given that there is a substantial proportion (I would guess 30 percent) of Americans who are radically politically correct, even to the point of resorting to violence against their less liberal neighbors if it came to that, I can't imagine that many people will suddenly wake up and smell the kool-aid.
There are a growing number of people who are disaffected but still a rather small number who are actively discontented and angry. Many people will grumble in private but comply in public. As always, there is only a small remnant who recognize truth and who are also willing to stand up for it against popular opinion or possible government coercion.
My suspicion is that people will become gradually used to their displacement and dispossession, and that they will get used to it and rationalize it as they did with the early Civil Rights revolution. The younger generations especially will have no problem with a new order of things in which they are the bottom of the totem pole, racially. They will see it as their rightful place, and will ultimately embrace the blended society in which they surrender their DNA to the genetic blender. They will literally be melted into the Brazil-style melting pot in a few generations. Are the 'worse is better' people willing to accept that risk?
I would like to hear any arguments explaining the conviction that an Obama administration would be 'good' for conservatism (although actually I don't give a flip for 'conservatism' at this point) or for traditional America. I can accept the idea that it would be destructive to 'conservatism' (whatever that is) to elect McCain and have him become the 'face of conservatism' as Bush has become (falsely) the face of conservatism over the last 8 years. But I am far from convinced that there is any real reason to put our faith in Obama being a unifier of white Americans. No, he would further divide us.
Consider the fact that he already has some half-admirers among 'conservatives.' Most of us in this country have imbibed so much liberalism that few of us are free of the urge to want to find admirable minorities to whom we can attach our hopes. Call it the Stockholm syndrome, but many conservatives yearn to find a minority figure on whom they can fix their adulation. Obama will do just fine for many Republicans; they will fall prey to his 'charisma' and his supposed 'eloquence'. Those of us who resist the 'charm' will be called racist bigots and 'divisive'.
I simply think that it is a big leap of faith to believe that Obama would be 'good for conservatism' or that he would be a catalyst for a new racial awareness among whites. No; I think we are underestimating most Americans' willingness to adapt themselves. Look what we have become used to since 1957 and forced integration. Americans have become like battered women who won't give up on their abusive spouse. We have become resigned to being the villains in this never-ending racial melodrama, and I think an Obama presidency would only cause most of us to become more passive and resigned than ever. But I would like to hear arguments, based on something solid, to justify the belief that ''worse is better'' and that Obama would only hasten a turn for the better. If it's possible it would be comforting to believe that.