Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 18, 2014

The midterm election was the “revenge of the white male voter,” according to the professionally offended Amanda Marcotte of Slate. When it comes to the numbers, she’s right. Sixty-four percent of white men voted for Republicans; 34 percent voted for Democrats. Whites overall voted 60 percent for the GOP and whites made up 75 percent of voters, as opposed to 72 percent in 2012.

Despite the spectacle of black Republicans Mia Love and Tim Scott, and giggling from National Review about how the GOP is going to win over non-white voters, the Republican Party is actually growing more dependent on the white vote. This is what underlies the emerging liberal claim that the elections were somehow illegitimate because insufficient numbers of non-whites voted. However, even though the GOP won because of white voters, the Republicans’ share of the white vote is comparatively low to the margins won by Presidents Nixon and Reagan in 1972 (67 percent) and 1984 (64 percent).

If the Republican Party isn’t quite the “white party,” it’s certainly the party of the white majority. In the South, whites vote as a bloc for Republicans the same way blacks do all over the country. The most extreme example is Mississippi, where 89 percent of whites voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. This election, progressives were stunned to discover that the “war on women” failed to inspire white women to vote Democrat, leading journalists to charge that racist white women had “failed” females everywhere.

However, it’s worth asking why whites should vote for the Republican Party. After all, Republicans have hardly been defenders of white interests and were stopped from helping Barack Obama amnesty millions of illegal immigrants only because of outrage from their own base. Republicans are simply less awful than Democrats.

As Thomas Jackson pointed out in his recent review of The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind, European-Americans are unrepresented when it comes to the two most prominent issues affecting our people: racial preferences and immigration. Political leaders generally support more affirmative action and immigration despite widespread opposition. Perhaps an even more important issue is freedom of association–something briefly defended by Senator Rand Paul before he decided betrayal was a better way to serve his ambitions.

Therefore, while white votes are still enough to determine the political landscape, and white politicians are still overwhelmingly in power, this doesn’t translate into white representation. This is especially true since any white politician who acted explicitly in defense of white interests would quickly lose power. On the other hand, non-whites are rewarded for acting on behalf of their people.

Although Republicans rely upon white voters and use coded racial appeals to win their support, a Republican politician will find himself disowned by his own party if he attempts to champion white interests. The Republican Party’s attacks on its own candidates in the cases of David Duke and Pat Buchanan show that the GOP would actually prefer electoral defeat to the charge of being “pro-white.”

The Republican Party could win a greater percentage of the white vote by supporting popular causes like ending racial preferences, establishing English as the national language, and cracking down on illegal immigration. They could also make a concerted effort to win over the white workers, many of whom, as Mr. Jackson pointed out, do not vote.

But what white advocates think the Republican Party should do bears no resemblance to what the Party will do. After all, if the GOP was interested simply in winning elections by appealing to whites, we would not be in the current mess. Therefore, what is likely to happen?

Despite the Republican Party’s traditional cowardice and corruption, Democrats may be creating a unified white political consciousness. As Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer have both observed, the Democrats campaigned on the politics of grievance in 2014 by talking up a “war on women,” championing Ferguson, and accusing Republicans of passing voter ID laws to suppress non-white voters.

Combine this with Barack Obama’s determination to push through an executive amnesty, and the racial battlegrounds will become clear. If there is to be a mass amnesty, we want it to come down unilaterally, illegally, and at the hands of a black President whose administration seems to be driven by anti-white animus.

The Republican Party will benefit from white outrage in the short term, even if it doesn’t do anything. In fact, we can expect that they won’t do anything. But the Republican Party is not what is ultimately important. What is important is that permanent racial tension and imposed diversity will continue the progression of America towards a Lebanon-style political culture of tribal head-counting. The fact that whites will continue to migrate towards Republicans, who don’t have whites’ best interests at heart, is less important than the long-term trend of whites consolidating as a unified political force. The anti-white media ensure that even a relatively small white majority (like the GOP’s sixty percent vote) will be defined in racial terms.

Democrats can try to counter some of this through economic outreach to white workers, as some progressives are urging. The problem is that anti-white identity politics are now so central to progressive ideology that it has overwhelmed issues of class and income inequality. Even the Occupy movement quickly collapsed because it insisted on Byzantine discussion about racial privilege rather than focusing on issues that could rally white workers. And the Democrats’ dependence on black turnout will necessitate more Ferguson-style race-baiting, which will result in the kind of rioting and violent rhetoric that will force European-Americans to take a side in the racial Cold War, even if they don’t want to.

A deeper problem is that the Republican Party may try to prevent itself from becoming the de facto white party. This is in fact the party’s intention as laid out by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who has aggressively pushed for openness to illegal immigration and a greater effort to win non-white voters. The trajectory of presidential contender (and possible front runner) Rand Paul speaks for itself.

The Republican base already reflects a powerful implicit white identity and an increasing impatience with Democratic minority politics and anti-white posturing. While white advocates are used to hearing the old saw about whites “waking up,” it’s striking that the Republican base forced the Republican Party to oppose amnesty in spite of itself. Even Rand Paul ultimately voted against the Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

Slowly, painfully, and against the wishes of both the Democratic and Republican leadership, a white political consciousness is developing. It is most forcefully expressing itself on the issue of immigration. Barack Obama’s upcoming amnesty will escalate this process. Even though whites don’t want to think of themselves as a bloc, they are subject to a government that increasingly insists on treating them as one.

The 2014 elections were good for whites not because the Republican Party is worth supporting, or because it will do anything substantial protect white interests, or because it is becoming a white party. It’s good because it is setting up a conflict between what Peter Brimelow calls a Minority Occupation Government and a Congress that is perceived by a hostile media and by the Republican base to be “white.” It is furthering the development of a white political consciousness by forcing a conflict that can be interpreted only in racial terms. And as the progressive movement in this country justifies the redistribution of resources and power chiefly along racial–not class–lines, white political consciousness will develop further in the years to come.