mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Demographics and 2016
Asian-Americans Survey: GOP in Even Worse Shape Than Thought
Features Icon
show comments
  • rheddles

    I can’t wait until people don’t make their political decisions on the basis of their ethnicity.

    • M Snow

      Are you really, really young?

  • Anthony

    “This all suggests a GOP failure to frame the issues properly and to court Asian-Americans.” Well, perhaps “Asian-Americans” (nee, Americans) may see beyond the GOP reframing and silently grasp its elemental root.

  • Angel Martin

    Instead of pandering to these anti-American immigrants, use immigration reform to keep them out.

  • Boritz


    Makes no distinction between illegal immigration which Trump opposes and legal immigration which he doesn’t. I hate to think that Trump is too nuanced for TAI and his detractors to follow but…

  • Beauceron

    Look, non-whites vote Democrat. It’s why the Dems have fought so hard to flood the country with immigrants over the last forty years. Give or take, we have had roughly a million immigrants to the US every year for decades. That’s a lot of voters

    The Dems want a permanent majority, and this is how they set about getting it– that the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican party, who wanted cheap labor for their big business donors, aided them every step of the way just shows how incredibly stupid Republicans are. In the end Republicans help make the rope Democrats will use to hang them.

    We are arriving at the point now where any political party that wants to be viable on a national level must be an open borders party. Aside from whites, racial and ethnic groups in the US vote in blocks, and one thing those groups want is lots more of their group to be citizens so their group gains more power. The staggering demographic shift over the last 30 years was not organic, it didn’t just happen. It was engineered. That effort is now paying off for the Dems and in a decade or so they will have their permanent majority. Even now, it is incredibly difficult for a Republican to win on a national level. By 2020, certainly by 2024, no conservative, traditionalist politician will have a chance at national office.

    You cannot, as a national political party, simply argue policy anymore. You have to offer benefits to racial and ethic groups (excluding whites of course, that’s racist), The Republicans can easily sway Asians and Latinos to their party– all they have to do is 1) promise to bring in even more of their group into the country (the Republicans tried this a year ago– they wanted to increase the immigration level from one million a year to 1.3 million a year but it was shot down by other Republicans) and 2) offer more privileges for those groups once they are here– scholarships, job quotas, special cultural programs, etc.

    America is gone. There is no bringing it back. My country has been murdered by its elites– who got awfully rich themselves in the process. I think Trump, with his slogan “Make America Great Again,” plays to the hope that the America many of us grew up in can be brought back, but it’s a lie. The Left have won. The identity politics that rule campuses now will sweep into the mainstream of every aspect of society like a toxic cloud and fill every corner. It is already starting in the business world.

    • ljgude

      Yes, you may well be right. Gone. Done. But now that the left has won they will collapse of their own folly at only God know what cost. From nukes for Iran to trans gender toilets – something will break as it did in 1929 and then something new will emerge. For better or for worse. In the mean time we have the Unelectable versus the Unacceptable and must wait to see who will lead us downward.

      • wri

        I’m not so optimistic. I think we stll have a long way to go down the road of Big Government corruption. One of the problems, as you suggest, is that the public is not being offered any alternative. The position of reform has been coopted by the far right “conservatives” who preach an unrealistic return to small (not smaller) government and social hatred.

        • ljgude

          Didn’t mean to sound optimistic, I’ll have to drive another stake through the heart of my inner Tom Friedman. It was not my intention to imply that we were not being offered and alternative. I think there would be a considerable difference between a Trump and a Clinton presidency. Personally I favor Trump because my inner George Patton likes to see the arms and the legs fly. But I agree with you that big government corruption could well have a lot more life left in it. After all, it pays well.

    • Ofer Imanuel

      You are stating the situation as it is. The author explains that from a lot of perspective, the Asians vote against their best interest (education, taxes, security).

    • dwk67

      Lady liberty today is like a passed out drunken woman lying nude on a bed. The democrats seem to think it’s perfectly okay to allow anyone who wishes to enter her room and have their way with her as long as they vote for them. How do you compete with that and harbor any illusion that it’s a fair fight?

    • wri

      Sad but much truth..Up to 50 years ago the national culture was that minorities were welcomed, but it was assumed that as citiznens they would identify as Americans and only secondarily by racial or ethnic group. And this is what happened: many immigrants faced the prejudice of “others” that is unfortunately inherent in human nature, but with time and a desire to “be “Americans” they were integrated into the culture of the country. Then elite and inflluential voices started telling minorites that the most important thing about them was their minority identify. Being “American” itself became something to fear and disdain, as it represented the oppressive society of the past, and under the doctrine of political correctness has even (according to these voices) become the instrument of an oppressive present. Minorities today must necessarily feel conflicted, believing that the country they say they would like to be a part of is irremediably bent on continuing to oppress them.

      While Asian-Americans are in a different position from blacks and hispanics, they must feel the effects of the current racial tensions. On the one hand, they are being told they are not being true to their race unless they are highly cognizant of their racial identity and act to promote its interests vis a vis other racial and ethnic groups — i.e., versus other “Americans.” On the other, they themselves are often the most harmed by the special treatment given to other minorities and therefore must band together by racial identity to protect their interests.

      The effects of the racial and minority policies imposed on the country by liberal elites has destroyed black culture and communities and turned the country into competing, demanding and self-focused racial/ethic and minoriity groups that are in increasingly angry conflict with one another. The wrongheadedness of theirs policies is obvious to most of those not slaves to the God of Political Correctness. But their faith in this God is so strong they are absolutley closed-minded to any discussion; to questionn in any way is to be a blasphemer — a racist.

    • Enemy Leopard

      See, Mr. Beauceron, it’s not so hard to make a cogent argument without calling people scumbags. But I will point out, my status as Moron of the Internet notwithstanding (This is such an honor! And I didn’t even know I was nominated…), I’m still waiting for an answer to my question from a couple of days ago. In your view, what proportion of Asians in the United States hypocritically want race-based affirmative action when it benefits them and race-neutral criteria when it doesn’t and are, therefore, scumbags?

      • Beauceron

        I saw your question, rolled my eyes, and moved on.
        I try not to get too entangled with Internet goofs, particularly when their questions were addressed.

        • Enemy Leopard

          You did not address my question. Your response refined my premise, but it did not contradict it. Perhaps it would help if I refreshed your memory. I hope that you’ll forgive the tedium to come, but I am Moron of the Internet, after all, and you can’t expect the most concise response. You initially wrote the following:

          “Asians have always supported the identity politics that have now taken over the country. They get benefits in minority hiring, scholarships, government contracts, etc. (the list of benefits bestowed on those for being a minority has grown too long to list).

          Now in one area where the focus on racial identity actually hurts them a bit, they want it overturned. Are they arguing that Asians should be taken off the rolls of the blessed, the sacred People Of Color beneficiaries? That they should no longer get special treatment in other areas?

          No, no, just in the one area where it isn’t good for them.

          This is not about justice or fairness. This is about a group having their cake and eating it too.

          No sympathy from me at all. Bunch of scumbags.”

          In response, I asked the following: “In your view, what percentage of [Asians in the United States] think they should get special treatment on account of their race and are, therefore, scumbags?” Your reply:

          “Who I think are scumbags are people who want a system to work one way as long as it has positive benefits for them, but if it affects them negatively in one particular area, they demand that one area alone be modified so that it still benefits them.”

          Of course, this view is perfectly consistent with the premise of my question. If an Asian advocates for a system that takes account of race only when it benefits Asians, that means only that he is efficient in his quest for special treatment (those wily Orientals!). Since I’ve tried to be fair to you, I refined my question when I asked it again. But I guarantee that you have in no way answered it, as an intellectually honest answer would include a percentage.

          It’s irrelevant to the question, but I’ll explain my motivation for asking it. I’ve been reading this site for many years, and I’ve quietly lamented the deterioration of the comments section. Now, I’ll remind you that you don’t know a single thing about my politics, except that I object to people relieving themselves all over a site that I value more than nearly any other. There are many venues on the internet where you can collect attaboys for venting your spleen about this or that group of scumbags (curiously, the offending groups never seem to include conservative white men, unless the speaker is a noble populist railing against the out-of-touch Establishment, of which he is by definition not a part, no sir!), but this ought not be one of them.

          You are clearly capable of composing an intelligent answer to a question, yet you’ve twice dodged this one. It strikes me that you may even be uncomfortable with the implications of your first statement, and that you’d rather tone down your language; if so, that would reflect well on you. But I will point out that your refinement boils down to this: Special pleading on behalf of one’s group is scumbaggery – that is, simple hypocrisy makes one a scumbag! If so, I likely needn’t poke too hard to discover that you, too, are a scumbag. But I doubt that you actually believe that’s the criterion.

          To help you out, I’ll narrow my question even further. My own view is that most Asians in the United States are to some extent guilty of the hypocrisy you mention, and that they are wrong to be so. If that is correct, does it follow that a majority of Asians here are scumbags? Or does my belief in modus ponens make me even more of a goof?

          • Tom

            The fact that you threw in “conservative white men” tells me all I need to know about your politics.

          • Enemy Leopard

            I count myself a conservative white man, genius.

          • Tom

            Obviously not a very good conservative, then. I’ve not seen a lot of ragging on women–feminists, sure, but that’s ideology. Racial stuff I’ll grant you a bit, but I think you’re overstating the issue. As to conservatives– it’s not conservatives who’ve set things up to where failure is the only option (except maybe Iraq)

          • Enemy Leopard

            A site needn’t go the full Breitbart and be overrun with alt-right white nationalists for its discourse to become debased. Yes, I’m focusing on the casual racism exhibited by many commenters here, along with the general tendency toward dehumanizing language and over-the-top invective (“Libtards are scum. F–k ’em all.” Fascinating! There’s a large community over at Breitbart hungry for such insights.)

            The question of who’s a more consistent conservative is entirely beside the point, which is why I’m not going to adjudicate it further, except to say that you have nearly no basis on which to render a judgement. Being an ass isn’t an integral part of conservatism, so the fact that I’ve called someone out for his careless insults isn’t evidence one way or another. For what it’s worth, however, you’ll note that I didn’t criticize conservative white men, but instead the massive moral blind spot that allows some here to exile from tolerable society everybody except those who what-are-the-odds! look and think exactly like themselves. And even if I had criticized conservative white men – well, that’s a difficult but important thing for someone like me to do from time to time. The priest’s admonition in Chesterton’s story applies to us all: “It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don’t really think sinful.” (See, which remains one of the best things I’ve read online, for some excellent commentary on this point. And it was written by a subhuman piece of progressive filth, no less!)

            And don’t respond that criticizing this sort of language makes me the PC police. Political correctness has built up its (suffocating) cachet because it taps into something decent in our society: the desire to treat others respectfully. The fact that it hinders the free discussion of essential ideas, and is being used as a weapon by the activist left to silence its critics, is an excellent reason to toss out it out. But not to throw away decency itself. One can stand firm in the truth – it’s essential in these times! – without wantonly casting about insults. The fact is that I suspect Beauceron is more decent than he lets on, which is why confronting him with his own words could be an effective way of causing him to focus his writing. This isn’t exactly Proverbs 27:17 territory, but the same principle is at play.

          • Tom

            While I’ve seen evidence of what you’re talking about–most noticeably from Dale Fayda–I really do think you’re overstating the problem.
            Furthermore, it’s my contention that what you’re seeing is reaction more than action– you’re doubtless familiar with Lewis’ proposition that if one is denounced as something long enough, eventually the temptation to just say “Fine!” becomes nearly overwhelming.

          • Enemy Leopard

            I’m familiar with the idea, but I hadn’t heard it called Lewis’ proposition before. I agree that it explains a lot of the current political moment. But as someone recently put it on Twitter, what people forget about The Boy Who Cried Wolf is that, at the end of it, there’s actually a wolf.

            I’ve devoted some time recently to reading the foundational documents of the alt-right – erudition is an undervalued aspiration these days – and both the neo-Nazi and racially neutral variants are horrifying in their own ways. So it’s possible that I’m being a bit oversensitive here, and that I see a racist boogeyman under every anonymous poster’s skin.

            I will also grant that the problem particularly manifests itself when one of WRM’s articles gets picked up by the large news aggregation sites, attracting a virulent audience that’s not native to TAI. But I still contend that it exists and that, if one looks for evidence going forward, it won’t be hard to find.

            I should mention, for the record, that the problem here isn’t confined to the right, though this being a center-right site that’s mostly the direction it comes from. There is, of course, our friendly resident liberal, who seems to have developed about thirty years ago exactly one idea about what conservatives believe and hasn’t needed to verify it with any of them since.

          • Tom

            Your last paragraph is a statement that could be made about either of our resident liberals.
            I do think you’re doing a disservice to the alt-right–Nazism seems to be a little excessive even for them. However, the prominence of white supremacists and separatists in the intellectual underpinnings of the movement is troubling to say the least.

          • Enemy Leopard

            I don’t know that this is the place for me to give a complete taxonomy of the alt-right, or that I’m well-read enough to be the person to do it, but let me give you my sense of what the movement is and why it’s not at all a coincidence that it’s attracted an enthusiastic and vocal minority of white supremacists. This is way too long, so I’ll forgive you if you don’t read it.

            The alt-right is hard to define. Even its foremost proponents admit as much. This is because it’s an assortment of groups, each with its own philosophy, but which are united in their opposition to progressivism, multiculturalism, globalism, and the growing trans-Atlantic governing consensus of the past few generations. These include Reactionaries, neo-Nazis, men’s rights advocates, Gamergate enthusiasts, and perhaps some less politically engaged folks who are just pissed off by political correctness.

            I’m going to focus on the first two groups, Reactionaries and neo-Nazis, the latter which I use as an umbrella term for a spectrum of white supremacists large enough to encompass, say, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, and Terry Nichols. They coexist in a sort of symbiotic relationship; Reactionaries provide the alt-right with its intellectual gravitas, while the neo-Nazis are its online shock troops, in a sense.

            What follows is something of an oversimplification, but it will have to do for now. Reactionary philosophy can be summarized thusly: Governments that purport to act in the name of the people actually undermine the health and happiness of their populations. To do this, they lump communism and democracy together into a single category of government called demotism, mingling together all of their faults on the flimsy basis that both claim to draw their legitimacy from the people. In this view of history, the Glorious Revolution kicked off a multi-century decline into instability and misery that continues to this day. The revolutions in America, France, and Russia were all aftershocks.

            Reactionaries believe that we would, literally, be better off if we overthrew our democratic republic and replaced it with an absolute monarchy, one that violently and mercilessly quelled dissent. To justify this, one of their most prominent thinkers, Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug) conducted a though experiment within which an alien overload Fnargl achieves total dominion over the Earth and seeks only to maximize his own personal wealth. Moldbug then purported to prove that Fnargl would rationally institute a simple flat tax on the population and otherwise grant them as much freedom as possible – except, of course, the freedom to dissent, anyone who challenges his authority being subject to immediate elimination.

            To say that I believe this misapprehends the historical legacy of monarchy is an understatement.

            On social matters, Reactionaries tend to trust the collective wisdom of centuries of cultural evolution over the whims of radical progressive movements that didn’t exist the day before yesterday. Man is a tribal animal and naturally distrusts outsiders; thus the political separation into Westphalian nation-states forged over centuries of warfare and ethnic cleansing is actually the arrangement most conducive to social engagement, communal bonds, and individual happiness. Put differently, multiculturalism breeds isolation, delinquency, crime, and misery. They claim that the level of crime in the Victorian era was much lower than it is today, and that this bears them out.

            They also believe that traditional gender roles, including the patriarchial and monogamous model of the family, are essential to human flourishing, and that feminism and the sexual revolution have undermined happiness overall, especially that of women and children. They point to decades of survey data to support this. They put particular emphasis on women’s sexual fidelity and self-control and their importance as mothers in rearing future generations.

            They tend not to be religious, but they view Christianity, and especially strong institutions such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as a glue that can increase social cohesion.

            Finally, and controversially, they take as settled science, based firmly in genetics, the existence of a racial hierarchy in intellectual ability, with Ashkenazi Jews on the top, roughly followed by East Asians, Europeans/Indians, Arabs, the indigenous people of the Americas and Australia, and, at the bottom, Africans. Just as Kenyans run faster marathons than Germans, Jews can solve Rubik’s cubes faster than the Sudanese. I’ll take them at their word that, in their minds, this is a benign belief, simply a statement of fact.

            The truth is that I find some merit in many of their social ideas, with some essential caveats, the most important being that I’m a Protestant Christian and believe each individual to be created in the image of God and, as a consequence, to possess inherent rights and dignity that no government can curtail. Another is my optimism that previous generations of Americans found in the melting pot a formula that dissolved traditional racial and ethnic divisions and forged a new nation freed from historical resentments. I take no stance on the racial questions, not because I necessarily think that Charles Murray is wrong, but instead because I think the issue is entirely irrelevant to how I should live my life, how I should treat other people, and what policies the government should pursue. In other words, I choose to be willfully colorblind on such questions. Besides, even if such a hierarchy exists, it’s unclear to me to what extent it’s the result of genetics over culture, environment, economics, or other factors. There has been a consistent multigenerational increase in IQ over the past hundred years or so – it is simply a fact that kids today, on the whole, have noticeably higher IQs than their great-grandparents – but this so-called Flynn effect appears to have tapered off for whites. It’s not clear to me that it might continue in disadvantaged groups as their socioeconomic status further improves.

            So that’s the Reactionaries. I’ll turn now to the neo-Nazis, with whom I expect we’re all familiar, so I won’t rehash all of their rancid ideas. I’ll only point out some of the commonalities that make them natural allies of the Reactionaries in the alt-right: A belief in white racial superiority (with a grudging respect for the intellectual abilities of East Asians); an imperative to return to a white nation-state; a belief in the cunning of the Jews, who, being traditionally members of a diaspora, they believe to pursue policies that undermine the solidarity of their host nations; a respect for Christianity and pan-European pagan religions, not out of strong religious conviction, but rather as a form of tribal identity; and a desire for a supra-Constitutional strongman to clean the nation of its filth and parasites.

            It’s no coincidence that Milo Yiannopoulos, in his youthful self-loathing and desire to transgress the boundaries of political correctness, wore an iron cross. It’s not a coincidence that, despite claiming matrilineal Jewish ancestry, he explicitly affirms the basic claims about Jews made by anti-Semites. Nor why the epithet “cuckservative,” with its racist grounding in a fear of miscegenation, has such cachet among the alt-right. I don’t think that Milo is actually a neo-Nazi – I think he’s a deeply sad man who seeks to fill a hole in his heart by constructing an outrageous alter-ego – but there’s no doubt that he inhabits the same general space, politically, as the bona fide acolytes of Rockwell.

            When I was seventeen, inhabiting a milieu in which a soft form of socialism was trendy, I intuited that at the core of communism is a disrespect for human freedom and the rights of man that invariably, inexorably leads to despotism and death. This despite the fact that many – perhaps even most – lay communists throughout history have been simple idealists railing against the genuine exploitation of the working class (to see what I mean here, read about the history of, say, the mining industry in Chile). Envious hypocrites, yes, but idealists nonetheless. The alt-right is the same way; if given power, its utopianism will inevitably collapse into misery. To quote Aylmer Fisher at RadixJournal: “The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like ‘equality’ and ‘human rights,’ especially as bases for policy.”

          • Tom

            I think you might need to split the reactionaries a little bit. You’ve got the white separatists lumped in with the monarchists, which dosn’t quite jibe with what I know of either group.
            Other than that, mostly spot-on.

          • Beauceron

            I can see you’re going to stalk me until I put this issue down, so let’s just get this over with.

            Since discussing Asians (or, as you seem to prefer, the less politically correct “Orientals”) seems to drive you over the edge, let’s refer to them as Group A as I offer a brief recap. Group A receives discriminatory race-based benefits in Policies 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. They happily receive these benefits for decades and do well by them. As they continue to climb the socio-economic ladder, they notice that race-based benefits are actually harming them in Policy 3. This might lead them to question the entire paradigm of discriminatory policies based on race, but no, it does not.They (or, to satisfy your peevishness, a sub-group of A) instead object only to the discriminatory Policy 3, but fully expect the discriminatory policies of 1,2,4,5 and 6 to continue unabated. That is scummy– it’s incoherent, unjust, unfair– in a word, despicable. They are gaming the system. Using it happily when it benefits them and bringing lawsuits when it does not. What they want is for the system to always work to their advantage in every instance.

            Then you pop in and demand to know what exact percentage of Group A is making this demand because, after all, there may be some in Group A who feel the demand is unreasonable– that the discriminatory policies should remain in place because as a group they still benefit greatly as a whole from these discriminatory policies. You raise an angry fist– surely those people can’t be considered scummy! The problem is, it is beside the point– in fact it misses the issue completely.

            Let’s just give you the argument in whole. Let’s say, just as a hypothetical, that a mere 5% of Group A wants to lift the discrimination of Policy 3, while 95%, the vast majority, are against it and want to keep it in place. But that 5% brings a court action demanding that Policy 3 be lifted. If the sub-group wins their court case, 100% of Group A reaps the reward, not just the 5% that argued against it. Are those 95% going to stick to their principles and refuse entry into Harvard or Princeton because, after all, those schools have “enough” of their Group or because it violates their principles? Are those 5% going to refuse the discriminatory benefits of Policies 1,2,4,5 and 6 because they opposed Policy 3? Of course not– that’s an absurd notion. The 95% can sit by silently– or even say they disagree with the 5%, but they will ALL take the benefit.

            Which is what makes the percentage a moot issue. In fact it’s a ridiculous point that honestly doesn’t merit a thoughtful response. For the life of me, I can’t see why you think this is a “gotcha” moment other than that it reinforces my earlier characterization of you as bit of a moron.

            As to the other stupidities you’ve committed in this post– your vain lamentations, your self-righteousness, your unwarranted high regard of your own intellect, your weak insults– I will leave aside. Unless of course you continue to stalk me from thread to thread.

            But I would like to point out that this:

            “Special pleading on behalf of one’s group is scumbaggery – that is, simple hypocrisy makes a person a scumbag!”

            provides further evidence of your lack of reading comprehension and your inability to follow arguments. That is NOT what I have said at all. That you have to misstate what I have said in order to have any argument at all is simple intellectual dishonesty.

            Special pleading on behalf of one’s group is not bad. It’s expected and fine and in some cases not only necessary but essential. That’s not what’s happening here though: what is happening here is that a group is demanding special treatment based on race except and until it stops benefitting them– then in that area and that area alone it must stop. Of course that’s scummy behavior.

          • Enemy Leopard

            Let me encourage you to look up the definition of special pleading, as “a group is demanding special treatment based on race except and until it stops benefitting them in one area– then in that area and that area alone it must stop” is a textbook example of it. Reading comprehension is not my problem.

            Point to one insult in anything I’ve written to you – just one! – or retract your claim that I insulted you. Show a little bit of that vaunted intellectual credibility you’ve written about. (You, on the other hand, have called me, among other things, a moron and a goof, and I’ve rolled with it.)

            You’ve missed my point, in any event. While it would be unfair to lump the non-scumbags in with the rest, my main objection is to your elision from “incoherent, unjust, unfair” (perfectly reasonable) to “despicable” (a bit strong, but I can see where you’re coming from) to “scumbags” (tone it down, buddy). Those words are not the same. Make your argument – I don’t care! – but don’t leave a mess all over this place.

          • Beauceron

            “You’ve missed my point, in any event. While it would be unfair to lump
            the non-scumbags in with the rest, my main objection is to your elision
            from “incoherent, unjust, unfair” (perfectly reasonable) to “despicable”
            (a bit strong, but I can see where you’re coming from) to “scumbags”
            (tone it down, buddy). Those words are not the same. Make your argument –
            I don’t care! – but don’t leave a mess all over this place.”


            So your objection all along was merely a bit of linguistic prudery? The word “scumbag,” meaning “an offensive or despicable person” was just too much for you? You spilled an awful lot of ink and put in an awful lot of work to make what is essentially a completely hollow objection?


            Have a pleasant day.

          • Enemy Leopard

            I told you as much a couple comments ago. I will point out, for the record, that you’ve produced no examples where I insulted you.

          • Beauceron

            I know.

            But you climbed on such a high horse I just assumed it had to be something with a bit more depth, something more substantive.

            My bad.

  • CaliforniaStark

    It should be noted that in San Diego mayoral election in 2014, Asians and and Anglos voted by almost identical percentages to elect the Republican Falconer as mayor. Latinos and African-Americans voted for the Democratic candidate. Asians in San Diego, many of whom are employed in biotech and high tech, often vote Republican in San Diego; and the one Asian on the City Council is a conservative Republican.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    I hate the GOP leadership and I always vote Republican even when I despise the backstabbing slime, because the leftist Democrats are the enemies of Western Culture which is responsible for Modern Civilization. So I’m curious why the Asian Americans are voting, are they voting for the Leftists or against the Right, or just voting for more largess from the Treasury.

    • Ofer Imanuel

      I think you can drop the largess part – they are paying for it even more than whites.

    • Frank Natoli

      Take Hawaii, a largely Asian state, solidly Democrat, worse than my home NJ or NY or CT or MA. The only rational explanation is culture. I don’t know why Asian culture favors big government and unlimited welfare state, but it does.

  • FriendlyGoat

    “And it puzzles the heck out of people.”
    There is no mystery here. The GOP has been blatantly lying through its buzzwords for many years now——pandering to the very idiots who now populate the party in remarkably high numbers (more than anyone thought—–as went the recent quote).

    The Asian Americans, being education-focused and industrious as they are, simply are not believing the nonsense and are running away from it——–BECAUSE, the GOP talking points taken together are not a credible presentation. The Republican ignorance on climate change is stunning enough, but throw in “Guns for Gangs”, and an urgent focus on bathroom bills and —–VOILA, a Dem voter.

    • Tom

      FG–a man who refuses to understand that Democrats lie more than the GOP.

      • FriendlyGoat

        But we’re talking about the opinions of Asian Americans. They’ll let us know what they think by their voting patterns. (They don’t know FG and would not care what he understands or refuses to understand.)

  • Jim__L

    I think the comment section here so far is (perhaps inadvertently) at least as informative about the issue as the article — no offense to the article.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service