The Sterility of Minority Outreach


The 2020 presidential election has been an utter mess. Although Joe Biden is presumably the new president of the United States, there’s still a number of legal challenges regarding potential voter fraud and irregularities that have to be ironed out before the transition of power becomes official.

What was likely the most important election of our lifetime (especially for my Millennial cohorts), the presidential contest saw a staunch nationalist in Donald Trump running against an aging neoliberal puppet in Joe Biden. For anyone who wants to preserve the European character of America, the choice was clear. With the smoke settling from the election, pundits of all corners are offering their post-election takes on why Trump apparently lost.

The Multi-Racial Fixation

Almost immediately, Republican leaders such as Marco Rubio declared that the GOP must transform into a “multiethnic, multiracial, working-class coalition” based on President Trump’s results in traditional Democrat strongholds such as the southern border counties in Texas and Miami-Dade county. However, the gains made in these areas with large numbers of Hispanics were not enough to put Trump over the top.

In fact, there’s evidence showing that Trump’s non-college white support, the most important demographic the GOP needs for long-term electoral success, went from 64% in 2016 to 62%. Such small decreases in support can make all the difference in American elections that are increasingly determined by razor-thin margins. Similarly, white working class males who voted Democrat went from 23% in 2016 to 28% in 2020. The portion of the working class increased their support for Democrats from 34% to 36%. Exit polls can be all over the place, but some suggest an overall decrease in the white vote for Trump from 2016 (57%) to 2020 (55%).

Regardless of the poll numbers, the fact that Trump isn’t getting anything well north of 60% of the white vote should be cause for concern. Whites are still the majority of the American electorate and are situated in key battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — all states that Trump won in 2016 but ended up losing in 2020. Any kind of defections of whites to the Democratic Party, no matter how marginal, can prove to be decisive in elections that could be determined by a matter of several thousand votes.

Trump’s numbers with Blacks remained stagnant — staying at 8% in 2016 and 2020 — and Hispanics — going from 29% in 2016 to 32% in 2020 — were a solid increase but nothing to write home about.

Many pundits say that Trump’s performance with the latter group is a sign of a coming “realignment” and justifies massive outreach efforts. Never mind that the Hispanic numbers Trump received are within the average that Republican candidates have picked up in the last 40 years. Ultimately, it’s not ground-breaking and it’s a major stretch to say that it represents a larger Hispanic exodus from the Democrat Party. History has repeatedly shown that based on Hispanics’ ethnic and ideological affinities with Democrats, they eventually end up voting solidly for them after Republicans overperform with them. To put it bluntly, the idea of Republicans getting a majority of the Hispanic vote is a pipe dream. However, many GOP consultants and grifters are intoxicated with this fantasy.

The Trump campaign’s fetish with attracting minorities may have likely cost President Trump his re-election. Upon reviewing the initial data, Trump traded miniscule minority gains for marginal, yet crucial drops in the overall white support. A foolish gamble indeed.

How Trump Actually Got Elected in 2016

White advocates have long stressed the importance of maxing out the white vote. Several figures such as Steve Sailer have called for the so-called “Sailer Strategy”, whereby the Republican Party targets working class whites with nationalist policies such as immigration restriction and economic protectionism. To a large extent, Trump pursued this strategy during the 2015 primaries and 2016 general election by campaigning hard on the immigration question and making it a point to bring back jobs to America. His critique of both legal and illegal mass migration separated himself from the rest of his flaccid opposition in the GOP.

Steve Sailer. “The Man Who Invented White Identity Politics


Unfortunately, Republican Party strategists largely discarded that winning strategy in 2020. Firstly, Trump mistakenly pandered to blacks through his introduction of the Platinum Plan, which functions as a conservative alternative to reparations. Anyone who has studied electoral macro-trends will quickly learn that Black outreach is an exercise in futility. Consider them a monolithic vote for the Democratic Party from now until the end of time.

Secondly, the noticeable lack of discussion of immigration. During his presidency, Trump scored several victories on immigration such as reducing legal migration by 92% and implementing a moratorium on the infamous H-1B visas (a helot labor handout that corporations exploit on the regular). However, Trump generally avoided any discussion of his legal immigration restriction accomplishments during the campaign trail, which even neoconservative outlets have actually pointed out.

One has to wonder if Trump’s handlers thought that not mentioning immigration would have wooed Hispanic voters. Based on Trump’s marginal improvements with Hispanics, which according to another poll by the Foundation for Research on Economic Opportunity went from 29% in 2016 to 32% in 2020, some people believe that the Trump campaign was justified in toning down his immigration message. As mentioned before, the numbers are all over the place — that’s the nature of exit polling — but it’s clear that Trump’s gains with Hispanics and other minority groups came at the expense of his white support. Such outreach efforts could have been re-allocated towards shoring up Trump’s white base and recruiting disaffected working class whites into his coalition.

For me, such pandering for pedestrian improvements with a minority demographic at the expense of the white vote is pathetic because:

  1. Whites still comprise the majority of the electorate.
  2. Trump dominated the primaries and the General Election in 2016 by running on a hawkish immigration policy.
  3. A nation founded and run by whites should not be making specific accommodations to ethnic groups who have a dubious track record in terms of net financial contributions and assimilation.

If anything, Hispanics in the country should be striving to assimilate into the American nationalist movement and not expect any special pandering directed towards them in the forms of sinecures or handouts.

Why People Should Remain Skeptical of a Hispanic “Realignment”

To the speculation regarding a potential break by Hispanics towards the Republican Party, I for one, remain unconvinced. Several trends stick out to me that demonstrate that they are a solid Democratic Party constituency, albeit not as monolithic as say the black vote.

Let’s start by looking at the way Hispanics have voted over the last 40 years. From 1980 to 2012, Hispanics voted on average 64% for the Democratic Party, with high water marks of 72% percent for Bill Clinton in 1996 and 71% for Barack Obama in 2012. Hilary Clinton nabbed 66% of the Hispanic vote in 2016, which surprised many pundits who originally predicted that Trump’s immigration restriction advocacy would capsize his support among Hispanics and turn them into an African American like bloc vote for the Democrats. Over the course of these election cycles, Republicans have managed to only acquire an average of 31% of the Hispanic vote. The high-water mark was the 40% of the vote that George W. Bush received in 2004. Similarly, Democrats achieved their worst performance with Hispanics that year by only receiving 58% of their votes. The surprising performance by Republicans in 2004 could largely be attributed to the rally ‘round the flag effect caused by 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, Hispanics have casted their ballots well north of 60% for the Democratic Party.

A more Hispanicized electorate will undoubtedly lead to Democratic electoral hegemony for decades to come. It’s simple numbers, folks. And many conservatives are in complete denial of visible macrotrends.

Interesting Exceptions to the Rule

One key battleground state that Trump not only won, but also improved upon since 2016 was Florida. The main story about Trump’s strong performance in Florida was his ability to bring more Hispanics into the fold. As many political pundits understand, Florida Cubans have been a reliable vote for Republicans since their exodus from their homeland in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution. Predominantly of European extraction (something your average Republican pundit won’t even mention) and largely scarred by the actions of a Communist government that violently expropriated their private property, many of the first wave of Cuban migrants to the U.S. already had a strong anti-Communist tilt. It also helped that Democratic President Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion to wrest control from Fidel Castro in Cuba. From there, Cuban voters had a convenient whipping boy in the Democrat Party to vote against for decades to come.

One interesting caveat about the Cuban vote is that in recent years it has somewhat drifted towards the Democrat Party. If I had to guess it’s largely due to the post-Mariel boatlift wave of Cubans which tended to be less white (roughly 15% to 40% were Black or Mulatto), which made them more receptive to the Democrats’ anti-white and welfarist message. The Mariel Boatlift became infamous due to the substantial number of criminals that were present during this migrant wave. Fidel Castro wanted to dump the dregs of Cuba’s prisons onto the U.S. and have it experience the many benefits of “diversity.” Additionally, the children and grandchildren of the first wave of Cuban migrants likely have assimilated to America’s leftist culture and have become less conservative than their predecessors. With these trends in mind, one can see how the Cuban vote is now not as solidly pro-Republican.To Trump’s credit, he has largely succeeded in keeping Cubans from drifting into the Democrats’ arms largely due to his clever red-baiting by using the collapse of Venezuela to appeal to Cuban voters whose families still have searing memories of the Cuban revolution and its tyrannical outcome. It’s worth noting as well that Cubans have largely taken over politics in South Florida and have built a strong infrastructure both politically and culturally to incorporate other Latin Americans into their Republican Party machine. This along with Trump’s focus on Florida Hispanics kept Cubans from going Democrat, while also making gains with other Hispanic groups such as Puerto Ricans.

Why Relying on Exceptions to the Rule Won’t Cut It

Despite Cubans’ reluctance to pull the lever for Democrats, they only make up a small portion of the total electorate. According to Vincent James of the Red Elephants, Cubans only constitute 0.5% of the population. They only represent 4% of the Latin American population in the U.S. and this percentage will likely decrease over time as more non-Cuban Hispanics move to the country and have children.

Another thing that has caught my attention lately is speculation from GOP officials that the recent influx of Venezuelans into Florida will keep the state from ever going Democrat. Even white advocates are begging to make these assumptions. At American Renaissance, Chris Roberts (a fantastic writer by the way) wrote an article in October discussing the Hispanic vote. One point that surprised me was his assertion about Venezuelans arriving in the U.S. and voting for the Republican Party the way Cubans have done for decades due to their experience with a socialist government. Based on my extensive reading of Venezuelan history, I believe this assumption is wishful thinking on Robert’s part.

There is a nugget of truth to the small number of Venezuelan voters in Florida, which approximates 80,000, may actually comprise a Republican majority for now at least. Non-Cuban Hispanics were split 50-50 in favor of Trump on election day according to NBC News. The numbers on the Venezuelan vote are still murky, but I have doubts that they will end up being as solidly Republican in the long-term as some pundits speculate. One report by Integrated Communications and Research, showed that nearly a third of Venezuelan voters in Florida are Democrats, while 5% are Republicans. Regardless, the Venezuelan voter base in Florida is pretty small. But bringing in more Venezuelans may not be in the GOP’s best interests.

A number of writers at the Mises Institute have detailed how Venezuela’s overall economic problems run very deep and that the country was collapsing even before Hugo Chávez came into power in 1999. One interesting article in Spanish revealed that the current Venezuelan opposition, which most Venezuelan migrants are likely to support, is a coalition of exclusively leftist parties — ranging from social democrats to communists. Not exactly a potential right wing voter base that American nationals can tap into. In all likelihood, increased Venezuelan migration will see a mean reversion, where the initial right wing wave of migrants gets completely dwarfed by subsequent leftists waves of migrants, who more accurately reflect the current state of politics in the country. It’s a simple game of numbers that many naïve right-wing strategists overlook to their own peril.

Hispanics Are Natural Democrats

Looking at the bigger picture, the political views of Hispanics should have none of us bullish about the prospects of Hispanics going to the Republican Party anytime soon. According to a Pew Research study entitled “Latino voters favor raising minimum wage, government involvement in health care, stricter gun laws” we get a firsthand look at how politically alien Hispanics are with regards to some of the Republican Party’s core ideology of free markets and limited government. The bulk of Hispanic voters (71%) believe that the government should take a more active role in solving problems. As for minimum wage increases, 79% of Hispanics are in favor of increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Around 71% also believe that the government should be in charge of providing healthcare to all Americans. With respect to America’s unique right to bear arms, nearly seven-in-ten (68%) of Hispanic voters believe that American should have stronger gun control laws.

The fact that the GOP can actually draw 40% of the Hispanic vote in the U.S. is amazing. Given the previously mentioned Hispanic voting patterns and political views, they seem like a natural fit for the Democratic Party. Truth be told, the Republican Party is overperforming with this demographic.

The trope of Hispanics being “natural conservatives” based on their Catholicism is frankly played out and ignores Latin American history. Let me set the record straight: Hispanic Catholicism is distinct from the Catholicism of European ethnics (Germans, Irish, Italians and Poles) who migrated to America from the 19th century until the early 20th century. Unlike their continental European counterparts, Catholics in Latin America often blended their faith with indigenous and African customs, creating a syncretic form of Catholicism that has little in common with the faith from the Old World. Not to mention, Latin American Catholicism has been subject to the modern-day mind virus of liberation theology. This toxic cocktail of socialism mixed with pro-Indigenous or pro-Black movements creates a significantly different Catholic experience for those living in Latin America. Catholicism in those parts appears to be more like witchcraft, rather than one of the West’s greatest religious sects.

How to Intelligently Address Hispanic Outreach

Now, I won’t completely throw Hispanics under the bus. There are still significant clusters of Hispanics who are residually pro-West. These types tend to be of European or castizo extraction. Some may not like how radical leftist goons vandalized the monuments of Catholic Spanish priest Junipero Serra and conquistador Juan de Oñate. But there are limits to appealing to Hispanics, and intelligent nationalists would be wise to recognize that.

Again, the only solace that any white advocate can take from looking at the 2020 election results is that Hispanics are not the black vote, which goes overwhelmingly Democrat. A case can be made for keeping Democrats from getting a monolithic Hispanic vote in the way it does with the black vote. Specifically, preventing that demographic from voting 80-20 in favor of Democrats. Although this should not be conflated with a Hispandering strategy that many GOP pundits think is the way to attract Hispanic voters.

Given Hispanics’ proclivities for “Big Government” it’s perhaps advisable for the GOP to go left on economics the way Continental European populist parties have done in recent years. The GOP may be able to pick up some Hispanic votes. However, I’m reluctant to embrace any massive expansion in welfare spending or government management of economic activity to placate a voting bloc whose values are alien to the historic American nation. Latin America has already offered us plenty of evidence of what the game of Banana Republic vote buying looks like. Frankly, I don’t want to bring the same Banana Republic experience my family and friends have had to deal with to the North American continent.

What Must be Done

The Right should recognize the voting patterns of non-white migrants lest they want to be rendered electorally irrelevant. Any serious right-wing movement in the North American continent should make the preservation of its European character its foremost political priority. All other issues should become secondary as far as any nationalist is concerned.

The cynic in me sees Hispanic and other minority outreach programs as ploys to try to do more failed pandering efforts that ultimately yield no results, when similar resources, time, and effort could be used to crank up the vote among working class white voters — the true forgotten men. However, the parasitic political consultant class has to grift, and they don’t care if whites get dispossessed in the process. A quick paycheck is well worth it for people who disregard the long-term implications of their treasonous behavior. The fact remains that America ‘s electoral vote is still determined by white voters (who comprise 67% of the electorate). There is simply no existential need for the GOP to start doing outreach with minorities. It needs to adopt Sailer Strategy style inreach.

Even with America’s demographic changes that are baked into the cake, a GOP that could be able to get 70% of the white vote or higher and also boost white turnout would still be competitive even into the 2050s. Although demographics is destiny, whatever demographic disadvantages Republicans must deal with can still be made up for by pushing populist economic and immigration restriction policies that get white voters fired up.

One has to wonder if American conservatives will ever get the memo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.