March 23, 2016

Trading the Mormons for Michigan: A winning realignment

We've already covered the general pattern of Trump being more popular back East than out West, as well as the special case of Mormons in Idaho. So the results of tonight's kool-aid caucus in Utah should have come as no surprise.

They're the descendants of an apocalyptic cult that left behind their roots (families, home towns, and Christianity), followed a guru out West who wanted to build their own society outside of the United States (statehood only achieved decades later, after ending polygamy), and were globally rather than nationally oriented (not merely missionizing around the world, but actively seeking to bring them back here, so that Polynesian gangs are now a problem in Salt Lake City).

I've read a few people suggesting that if Trump were the Republican nominee, Utah might actually vote Democrat in the general. They've got 20% non-white population, which would go to the racial identity politics huckster, Hillary. Throw in the white liberals, and you're near 30%. And perhaps the Mormons will be so upset by Trump's show of "religious intolerance" -- freezing Muslim immigration for awhile -- since being a persecuted religious minority is a fundamental part of their identity. Add in their Saxon-Scandinavian aversion to straight talk, and you get a Minnesota of the Mountains attitude toward Trump's tone. Plus a sidelining of the culture war by the Trump movement, which is their main attraction to the Republican coalition.

Who knows how realistic that is? But let's just say that it happened, and was part of a broader realignment. Suppose the Republicans become the strong government party -- to keep companies from moving jobs out of the country, to regulate Wall Street back down to size, to defend the borders, to extricate ourselves from nation-building, and to re-build our own nation.

And suppose the Democrats become the small government party -- they've already got the "get the government out of the bedroom" lifestyle libertarianism, they would just have to absorb the Wall Street libertarians who don't want to be taxed or regulated. With Trump as the nominee, and Wall Street-owned Hillary as the alternative, libertarians would defect to the Democrats.

As for identity politics, suppose that the Republicans become the party that ignores the approach altogether, and focuses on practical matters. Then the Democrats would absorb the whole culture war, identity politics, values-voter crowd -- anyone who felt they were a misunderstood, persecuted, or aggrieved minority. That would include racial minorities with a chip on their shoulder, feminists, homos, and yes even the Mormons and other Judeo-LARP-ing Christian cultists (but not the Mainline or Catholic or back-East Southern Baptists).

If the realignment went roughly along those lines, then the new electoral map would roughly be split east-west at the Mississippi River.

Could the Trump-driven Republican Party secure the 270 electoral votes needed to win the Presidency?

Not only could it win, it would do so handily. If the GOP got every state and DC east of the Mississippi, it would get 308 electoral votes, while the Democrats to the west would take only 230. That may sound shocking, considering the Dems would get both California and Texas, but there's just not that many people otherwise in the Plains, Mountains, and Pacific NW states. They were the last to be settled, after all.

Even if the Dems held on to all of New England and DC back East, that would still give the Party of Trump a narrow win with 272. The Republicans could even lose Florida permanently to the Dems, as long as they picked up all of New England in exchange, and eke out a victory with 276.

I don't imagine the map will realign that radically in a single election cycle, but the larger point remains: letting go of the Republican strongholds in the Plains and Mountain states would be a small price to pay, in order to gain the Rust Belt, Mid-Atlantic, and/or New England. They only joined the Republican coalition to chase their apocalyptic cult values, so there wouldn't be any great loss in terms of the goals that the winning Republicans back East would pursue.

Consider just the states where the Mormon presence is large enough to pull out of the GOP -- Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those states offer a mere 13 electoral votes combined. If we could trade the Mormons for Michigan (16 votes), we would gain 3 electoral votes already. If that were emblematic of a broader realignment, we lose more states with small vote counts and bring on board states with yuge vote counts.

Before total realignment, let's say the Republicans keep Texas, but lost the rest of the Plains and Mountain states (Nevada going with the Pacific states). That would be a loss of 65 votes. But suppose that by shedding the apocalyptic culture war approach, and pursuing the Trump platform, we reliably gain the Great Lakes / Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (Indiana is already reliably Republican). That would be 84 votes, for a gain of 19. That's without even picking off some of the Mid-Atlantic and New England with a pragmatic nationalist platform.

Somehow the Republican leadership and electorate allowed itself to be increasingly marginalized so that its "bedrock" of support was small in electoral votes, and so out-there in culture war ideology and Wall Street-driven deregulation, that they basically gave up the Presidency. Romney and McCain flamed out big-time, and Bush Jr. just barely and questionably picked up the majority of electoral votes in 2000, while losing the popular vote. (His re-election was a given, during the War on Terror.) Dole and Bush Sr. lost pathetically in the '90s.

It's high time we retired the Plains and Mountain states as the stronghold of the Republican Party. Whoever out West wants to join in, is perfectly welcome -- Arizona looks like it would be the only state in those two regions that would be enthusiastically pro-Trump. But from now on, the bastion of the Trump-era GOP must be the Rust Belt, the South, and the Mid-Atlantic (plus either Florida or New England, though ideally both). It sounds a little odd, but it would be historical/core America, as opposed to transplant/frontier America. Makes sense to me -- and evidently to everyone back East, where Trump fever is catching on.

26 comments:

  1. Yeah Mormons have really buried their old teachings about blax and Injuns, not only are they doing heavily proselytizing in Africa, but also in the "inner cities," and they are trying to get into the post-Catholic Rush for Latin America. Also: it just struck me a few days ago that Joseph Smith was basically the 19th century's L Ron Hubbard lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. A.B. Prosper3/23/16, 2:10 PM

    The LDS are generally a nice, decent Christian people, well organized and smart.

    However they live in a kind of bubble, an eternal 1962 and are incredibly gullible.

    Also bringing less stable elements Hispanics and Tongans and Samoans into areas they control even with high White birth rates is very unwise.

    Not only will there be racial strife but if/when things go hot in the US, the Evangelicals will probably try and exterminate them as many, not all of course regard them as devil worshipers.

    Unless they can change this perception or make the right actions to prevent a US implosion they are in for a lot of troubles.

    That said there are areas where no one cares and of course the Utah belt which seems to include Utah, Idaho, Nevada and to my surprise much of Wyoming which when I lived there was thoroughly Baptist or non religious

    The areas they own plus a colony in Illinois and New York where I don't think the tolerance problem will be as big, should suffice,

    And while re: the Samoans are technically Americans so they are kind of something we have to put up with till we get smart enough to cut them loose but the real trouble is the Tongans. For some reason they are the most per capita LDS nation on Earth being 1/3 Mormon. They are a nuisance to be honest and of course the Hispanics are the big issue.

    Its going to be a scary ride.

    That said if Trump wins and if he does as he claims, he'll buy some time which is good enough

    I don't know if there is a long term fix but I'm trying to avoid the apocalyptic thinking that permeates the West where I was raised so I'll say I hope so,



    ReplyDelete
  3. They live in more of a cosplay 1962, or cargo-cult 1962. It is and always has been an intentional community, like a hippie commune. If you subscribe to certain beliefs and practice certain lifestyles, you're in; otherwise, out.

    This places importance on adherence to a checklist that is external to the community, rather than on roots within the community that just so happens to have certain beliefs and practices.

    Contrast with the Amish -- they have distinctive beliefs and practices, but that's not how they draw the boundary between Us and Them. You can't just show up to Holmes County, OH and join the Amish. And they certainly aren't going around the country or the world trying to bring others into not only their belief-and-practice system but their very land.

    The Amish emphasize organic roots within their historical and traditional community, an internal measure rather than external checklist.

    The end result is that, unlike the Mormons, the Amish are not getting over-run by foreigners (or even their fellow Americans), are not the greatest victims of fraud or other predatory behavior, do not subscribe to any kind of prosperity gospel, and do not have record levels of psychiatric drug use or plastic surgery -- while still being intensely religious, high-fertility, and keeping traditional folkways alive.

    In order to survive, the Mormons have to undo Mormonism and adopt a more Amish approach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While we're on the Amish, they largely abstain from politics, as voters or politicians. "Render unto Caesar..."

    My vague understanding is that when they do vote, it's only local rather than national (not wanting to impose things on the other side of the country), and practical rather than ideological (nothing about religious / family / moral values, but getting a road re-paved, having regulations that are friendlier to Amish businesses, etc.).

    Eschewing the culture war, let alone taking it into the political realm, the Amish couldn't be more opposite of the theocratic tendencies of the Mormons and "Dominionist" Christians who flock to Cruz.

    The Amish would fit in much better with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell Jr. than the Mormons would.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HBD angle: Mormons are largely Nordic, either literal Nords or from the Nordic (not Celtic) regions of the UK, while the Amish are Alpine.

    As far as I can tell, Mormons have more Danes than other heavily Scandi places, so they're less faggy than Minnesotans, but not by a whole lot.

    At any rate, we do not want to idolize the Swedes, when we can look up to the Swiss.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cosplay seems like a good analogy. The Mormon beliefs are so transparently ridiculous and Smith such an obvious huckster, I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance. I think the majority of the original Mormon converts came from northern England and southern Scotland, augmented by some New Englanders and Scandis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A more concrete step that the Mormons should make is to their economy -- take up more artisanal jobs like the Amish. It would keep them grounded.

    Right now, Utah's economy is typical for out West -- resource extraction (mining and some oil), agriculture (cultivating the raw materials, rather than making finished foodstuffs), nature-themed tourism for outdoorsy lifestyle strivers, and New Economy services.

    By not playing much of a shaping or fashioning role while at work, they wind up feeling like cogs in a machine, and that the output of their work doesn't contribute toward their individual or collective identity. It's simply to earn money in order to enjoy modern creature comforts.

    The Amish still make all sorts of finished things out of raw materials -- building houses, making furniture, sewing clothing and quilts, and making finished food items (baked goods, noodles, dairy products, etc.).

    And all of these things that they make are distinctly Amish. Everyone, at least nearby, knows about all of these things made by the Amish, value them highly, and the Amish themselves get to feel not only pride in a job well done but also in a way that contributes to their distinct collective identity.

    If the Mormons would adopt that approach, and make "Mormon furniture," "Mormon quilts," "Mormon egg noodles / Mormon cheese," and build "Mormon houses," it would give them a stronger sense of concrete identity rather than abstract values-based identity.

    From what I can tell, though, right now the Mormons look down on hard honest work, and view "salt of the earth" folks as backward / losers / victims. They're obsessed with New Economy service jobs so they can keep up with the Joneses without having to break a sweat.

    There must be a sub-group of Mormons who would resonate with the Amish approach, though. If they split off, they'd be the way forward, while the others kept the cargo cult chugging along toward demographic replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course they could also add heavier manufacturing -- like Michiganders making and identifying with cars, or Pittsburgh being Steel City -- but that could take longer to get going.

    Still, the more concrete and finished goods they make, whether arts-and-crafts or industrial, the more grounded and meaningful their group identity will become.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've heard that Mormons are heavily invested in the private prison business, but I haven't researched this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What do you think are possible reasons why USGOV hasn't tried to fuck with the Amish, them being so White? The two suggestions I read of is their no guns/pacifism and that they do lobby for their interests.

    PA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just Sayin'3/23/16, 4:53 PM

    Amish not a threat

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neither are Minnesotans but they're getting Somalied.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For one, Liberals can't mess with the Amish through the normal pathways: academia, mass media, etc. Because the Amish refuse to partake in those things. So they aren't influenced and guilted into multikulti the way Minnesotans are.

    Two, Amish aren't seen as privileged so failure leftists arent' jealous of them. They work hard, sacrifice, and are generally boring. So there's not the same motivation for liberals: They create rape culture because they're jealous of charming frat guys getting laid, they hate on the rich because they perceive the wealth as inherited and unearned. Can't do that with the Amish.

    USGOV messing with groups of people is just a mechanical function of liberalism, and since there is no liberal jealousy of the Amish, USGOV does not mess with the Amish.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "They create rape culture because they're jealous of charming frat guys getting laid, they hate on the rich because they perceive the wealth as inherited and unearned."

    Utter misunderstanding of both those issues, and lazy characterization of liberals in general.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A.B. Prosper3/23/16, 6:25 PM

    Mormons do have a very high White fertility rate though, at the Chechen level in many areas. Its not a complete disaster for them, mainly "needing a tuneup" and taking the more Conservative elements of their faith to order.

    Even LDS I know here in anti-natal California have 3 children typically. Locally though this seems to have stopped with the younger 25 and under generation,

    I think its economic as much as anything since many of the guys and gals do not have college education and its doubtful the schools in the areas they are from are that badly infected by liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Obviously the Amish are much more wholesome and less insane than Mormons. But on the other hand, To some extent the Amish are just the 1600s version of the Mormons. What I mean is that they had a radical Anabaptaist, batshit insane theology and were a splinter group of a splinter group of a splinter group.... They were also forcibly kicked around Mm locations in Switzerland, Southern Germany/ Baden Wurtemburg, Alsace, and eventually had to retreat to the then frontier/no man's land of West North America.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I think the majority of the original Mormon converts came from northern England and southern Scotland, augmented by some New Englanders and Scandis."

    David Hackett Fischer just turned over in his grave (or is he still alive?). The roots of Mormonism can be trace from Utah to the burnt over district of western New York to Puritan New England to Cromwell's army in the English Civil War.

    When Joseph Smith actually encountered folks who ancestors came from the English/Scottish border, they showed him the rope.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "To some extent the Amish are just the 1600s version of the Mormons."

    Did they invent a new religion out of whole cloth?

    Did they practice polygamy?

    Did they swear blood oaths against their host government as part of their temple initiation ritual?

    Did they missionize all over the world, and try to bring the whole world to settle their own lands?

    Just because they're a religious splinter group, doesn't make them a whackjob cult. More or less everything you said applied to the Puritans as well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Mormons do have a very high White fertility rate though"

    It's an effect of their bubble / gated community / mountain retreat way of life. Once that comes under siege, there goes their fertility. It's already declining, and you're seeing it even more with Millennial Mormons.

    If they could live in a secluded bubble forever, maybe they could maintain their high fertility rates and naive innocent psychology.

    But that's not a reliable way of life, where you need a constant bubble in order to survive. Even worse, they refuse to seal the borders in order to maintain the bubble -- they actively seek to dissolve it by missionizing and bringing back foreigners, and the rest sit by passively for fear of making invaders feel unwelcome.

    Utah is now only 80% white -- no better than the Great Lakes states. Their cultural capital of Salt Lake City is by now probably 60% white, and even their religious capital of Provo is 80-85% white, with 15% Hispanics.

    SLC is a sanctuary city for illegals, and so is the state-level government:

    "The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies."

    http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Zed, https://history.lds.org/article/pioneer-story-the-convert-immigrants-?lang=eng
    "As the Church spread through Europe, tens of thousands of new converts emigrated to America, leaving everything behind them for their faith and desire to be with fellow members. Of the 60,000 to 70,000 Saints who emigrated to the Salt Lake Valley in the late 1800s, more than 98 percent of the survivors were from Europe, and 75 percent were from Britain. The British converts began to emigrate with the arrival of Brigham Young to Britain in 1840. As American members faced persecution, new European members brought strength and refreshment. "

    ReplyDelete
  21. @PAworldandtimes, the government actually ran a sting operation against Amish "illegally" selling raw milk. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381995/Fed-cracks-Amish-selling-contraband-milk-undercover-sting.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Puritans were pretty much insane too. After all, they and their descendants were heavily involved in creating bat-shit insane progressivism and SJW. There's a reason that Harvard, Yale are the way they are.

    There's a reason Puritans banned celebration of Christmas, Easter, Holidays in general. There's a reason they practically or did at times ban dancing, drinking, were leaders of Prohibition etc.

    The reason, like I said before, is that in some respects crazy tltheological splinter groups like Puritans and Amish were the 1600s version of Mormons. For Goodness's sake, they banned Christmas and replaced it with Harvard Commencement day, what more proof do you need???

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're "pretty much" an airhead millennial spaz.

    Polygamy, blood oaths against government, secret Temple initiation rituals lifted from the Freemasons, new religion whose sacred text puts Jesus in the New World and Amerindians as descendants of Jews who crossed the Bering Strait, this text translated by use of magic "seer stones," stocking a year's supply of food and water for coming apocalypse, etc. -- Mormons, not Puritans.

    PS Jews did Harvard and Yale, not Puritans. They also did "French" philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Generation X, 1970.

    Jews did not dominate Harvard, Yale until after after WW II. Ever heard of Jewish Quotas? Jonas Salk and Richard Feynman, two of the most brilliant scientists ever, got rejected from Ivy League because of it and had to go to NYU instead.

    Do you really think Harvard, Yale, etc. weren't leftist in the 1800s and early 1900s, when they were completely WASP run operations?

    Puritans were not like Anglicans and Lutherans in terms of being relatively normal in 1600s.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh also forgot, if you aren't the biggest fan of Jews, why would you not think Puritans are insane?

    Puritans were the creators of the Christian Zionism that still dominates Christian Evangelicals and some Mainline today. Calvinists time and time again exulted and praised Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."