Does the GOP’s Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?

If Democratic voters were rapidly increasing in number and Republican voters rapidly decreasing, it should be pretty big news, shouldn’t it?

Not when at issue is a third rail of American social commentary: race.

Recently I wrote a piece on race and voting patterns, using as a lede the story about how white births now account for less than 50 percent of the U.S. total for the first time in history. And while most respondents agreed with my analysis, some reacted predictably: Uncomfortable even hearing about race and/or frightened by what lies ahead, they rationalized away obvious facts.

And here is one: You cannot understand where our nation is headed ideologically without grasping the link between racial identification and voting patterns — and demographic changes that will yield Democratic hegemony.

One response to my piece was that “it’s not about race.” This is true — in a sense. It’s about how group identification correlates with many other factors. For instance, Scandinavian immigrants are very liberal, and Jews vote Democratic upwards of 80 percent of the time. Thus, if these two white populations were increasing rapidly, it would make sense to discuss their future impact on the political landscape. But they’re not.

Another response was that I was confusing race with culture. Actually, though, this confuses the “what” with the “why.”

And here is a significant “what”: Republicans derive 90 percent of their presidential-election vote from whites. Democrats win the non-white vote by, on average, more than 70 percent.

Here is another “what”: One of these constituencies is shrinking, and the other is growing — rapidly.

How rapidly? Non-Hispanic whites shrank from almost 90 percent of the U.S. population in 1965 to 69 percent in 2000. And between 2000 and 2010, their share dropped another six points — faster than analysts expected.

Given the last statistic, it’s safe to say that, all other things being equal, the GOP will have a tougher time winning the 2012 election than it did the razor-thin-margin 2000 election. And all other things aren’t equal: Today Republicans face an incumbent.

{snip}

For Romney to win, however, he must not only hold states leaning his way, he must almost run the table with the toss-ups or peel off some likely Obama states. He has little margin for error.

Some will say that this is only one election. But Obama is the most radical leftist ever to assume the presidency; a 2007 study showed that he had the Senate’s most left-wing voting record (avowed socialist Bernie Sanders was number two). And Massachusetts Mitt is a moderate on a good day — a liberal on a bad one. So I ask: What conservative GOP candidate could possibly change the electoral equation? {snip}

{snip}

As to the “why,” demographics aren’t the only reason. There is, of course, the leftist ideology preached through academia, the media, and entertainment. And there are exceptions to the racial voting correlation such solidly blue Vt., which is 95 percent white. But the demographic patterns and influence are unmistakable — and, among conservatives, largely unmentionable.

When it is discussed, however, we sometimes hear the term “tipping point.” So is there a GOP-Dem. electoral tipping point? Well, this brings us to my title. When Texas — which is experiencing huge demographic changes — finally flips and puts its 38 electoral votes in the Democratic column, what realistic path will Republicans have to presidential victory?

Of course, political parties adapt, so the GOP could move left with the electorate and survive. But authentic Americanism would not. And, then, the question is, with the way we’re being balkanized, will America join Americanism in the dustbin of history?