Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:
“For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.
I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we’d won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they’re going to finally see it, they’re going to finally believe it, they’re going to trust it [“it” meaning conservatism].
So why didn’t that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn’t that last?
I’ll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration.“
Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn’t yet gotten to the point where he’s comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.
Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you’re totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.
We don’t have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won’t have a country anymore.
There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don’t owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.
Back to Rush:
“[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that’s what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan’s success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they’ve been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?”
Actually, it’s closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California’s population is probably even higher than 1/3.
“You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.
The electorate has been changed.
The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation.”
First Tucker, now Rush.
While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.
This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I’m not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush’s opinion.
Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a “diverse”, post-mass migration society, economics don’t matter to voters. Not really.
What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.
If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.
Republicans had first tried running against FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR’s policies were so widely popular. FDR’s policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR’s New Deal.
That’s what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.
But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.
Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan’s success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.
Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.
That’s just the way it is.
It’s about way more than economics. It’s about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.
Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as “Uncle Toms” by other black people? Because there’s a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.
Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate “systemic racism” against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.
It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the “White Party” and the Democratic Party as the “nonwhite party.” Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?
And if you’re wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren’t enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.