How divided are we?
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
We have been told over and over again that Al Gore won the popular vote, but by a rather small margin. This is supposed to mean that the nation is divided right down the middle, politically and ideologically. But this may not be the true picture at all of what happened on November 7th. A study of the map showing the national vote county-by-county tells a surprisingly different story. That map shows that Bush won 2,434 counties nationwide to Gore's 677. It shows that the population of the Bush counties is 143 million as opposed to Gore's of 127 million. It also shows that the Bush counties covered an area of 2,427,039 square miles as opposed to Gore's 580,134 square miles.
From the county point of view it looks like a huge Bush landslide. So why didn't the popular vote reflect that? If you study the map, it tells us quite clearly what happened. The map shows Bush's counties in red, Gore's in blue. The red counties virtually cover the entire country. The blue counties are like islands in a sea of red. They are mainly concentrated along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and form an archipelago down the Mississippi valley. There are islands of Gore-blue along the Mexican border. Also, some of the big counties in New Mexico are blue. What it means is that in areas of heavy minority concentration Gore won. And he won not because of the size of the minority population but because they voted virtually as a bloc, giving Gore as much as 90 percent of the Black and Latino vote. Thus, even though the non-minority population might have been larger, its pattern of voting was more evenly distributed between the two parties, with Bush generally leading. Indeed, even though Bush got a higher percentage of the non-minority vote, it wasn't large enough to counter the huge bloc of pro-Gore votes among the minorities.
The minorities voted so overwhelmingly for the Democrats, that a Republican is at a tremendous disadvantage in such districts. In addition, in the Northeast, where the largest cities are located with the largest minority populations, the non-minority population tends to be more liberal than the rest of the country. This is particularly true of the Jewish vote, which is almost as pro-Democrat as the Black vote. Thus, in cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Miami, the combination of Blacks, Latinos, and Jews voting overwhelmingly for Democrats creates a lopsided picture of the popular vote. Such a situation poses a real problem for Republicans.
Also, there is no doubt that many middle-class white women, feminists at heart, voted for Gore because of the abortion issue. What is said about the large cities of the Northeast-New York, Philadelphia, Boston-can be said of those on the West Coast-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle. The counties outside of those metropolitan areas went for Bush, except in New England where liberalism is almost a religion.
It is obvious that the liberals have studied this demographic reality and based their political strategy around it. Their ability to get as much as 90 percent of the Black and Latino vote is enough to make it possible for them to win in states with large electoral college votes. California and New York alone command 87 electoral votes. In Florida, the Democrats have tried to use their advantage with the minorities to win that state's 25 electoral votes even though most of the counties in Florida went for Bush.
Is there anything that Republicans can do to remedy this situation? First, they have to admit that it exists and want to do something about it. There are lots of very fine Black and Latino conservatives who ought to be able to help the Republican Party map out a strategy to change the voting patterns in these large minority districts. For example, Alan Keyes is easily the most articulate spokesman for the conservative cause. Why don't his arguments resonate among Blacks? Do they even hear them? Why doesn't Colin Powell have more influence among fellow Blacks? If I were in charge of the Republican National Committee, I would commission a study of the minority communities to find out if conservative values have any meaning for them. I would also launch a long-range education program-using videos, cassettes, lectures, and books written by eminent Black conservatives.
However, this educational strategy may not work in the South, where Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and Whites vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. In states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana, Bush won by comfortable margins, despite very large Black populations. He even won in Tennessee and Arkansas.
What is certainly worth celebrating is the fact that Republicans retained control of the Congress. If Gore becomes President, we shall have gridlock, which is what the Founding Fathers assumed would happen if the nation was so divided in its ideology that its legislative processes would be stalemated. Thus, even though Hillary Clinton will replace Senator Moynihan in that august chamber, she will be in the minority party.
Rick Lazio was bound to lose. He was just a little less liberal than Hillary. As a Rockefeller Republican he inspired little support from conservatives. He was pro-abortion. After watching him on a TV interview, I thought I was listening to a Democrat. Also, his invasion of Hillary's space at the end of their TV debate was so ill-conceived that it was sure to backfire, which it did.
Hillary, as representative of the Gramsci communists in Congress, will be a most useful indicator of ultra-liberal goals. As of this writing, the situation in Florida is still unresolved. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has been celebrated in Hanoi by communists. His picture in front of the giant statue of Ho Chi Minh will probably be widely distributed in Cuba.
We hope that George W. Bush is finally certified as the winner in Florida. Certainly, the incredible effort by the Democrats to steal the election is simply part of the Gramscian strategy of doing whatever it takes to win power in order to be able to use power. Already in the past few weeks Clinton has nationalized more millions of acres of forest land to be made into the kind of tinder boxes that went up in smoke in Montana. On return from Hanoi, he has promised to keep working for the communist cause until his last hour in office.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including "NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education," "The Whole Language/OBE Fraud," "How to Tutor," and "Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers." His books are available on Amazon.com.
Other articles by this author: (open in a new window)
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.